H-1B Shakeup, Kimmel Apology, Autism Causes, California Hate Speech Law

1. 0:00 – 2:23

   Bestie intros!

   1. JCJason Calacanis0:00

      All right, everybody. Welcome back to the number one podcast in the world, the All-In Podcast. We're back, we're back. We got the original crew here. It's a tight foursome with me again. He's returned from, I believe, the UAE, uh, and MENA, the one, the only, your chairman, your dictator, Chamath Palihapitiya. He puts the dick in dictator. That's what they all say. How you doing?

   2. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:25

      Good. You?

   3. JCJason Calacanis0:26

      Hmm. So you went and you got that... Wow, it's that beautiful airline that we all take to the region.

   4. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:31

      Emirates First Class? Yeah.

   5. JCJason Calacanis0:33

      Oh, Emirates First Class Cabin.

   6. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:35

      It's- it's insane.

   7. JCJason Calacanis0:36

      With the wine. Take everybody in 'cause I do business class for 14 dimes round trip.

   8. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:41

      Emirates is unbelievable. But the problem is, there's like literally a thousand movies. A thousand.

   9. JCJason Calacanis0:47

      Yes.

   10. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:47

       So you have to like favorite out 30 or 40 of them. There was like 95 different menu choices. I had probably 8,000 calories.

   11. JCJason Calacanis0:56

       Oh, really? And that was just the wine, I take it?

   12. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:59

       Yeah. By the way, the wine is incredible. The wine list, like 1996 Montrose. And I was like, "Are... Is this an air..." I had never seen an airline wine list. It was pretty strong. It was great.

   13. JCJason Calacanis1:10

       Did you bring your sommelier, Josh? Was he in the cabin next to you (laughs) with his own-

   14. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:14

       I didn't need it. No, I didn't need it.

   15. JCJason Calacanis1:15

       I like that, I like that. And of course, your sultan of science. We got a great docket for him. It's kind of like the Super Bowl for sultan fans this week-

   16. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:23

       Is it?

   17. JCJason Calacanis1:23

       ... because... Yeah.

   18. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:24

       I hope I deliver, bro. I mean, you're putting the pressure on now.

   19. JCJason Calacanis1:27

       Well, Trump cured autism and you're gonna come. It's on us. This is a pretty big deal.

   20. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:30

       (laughs)

   21. DFDavid Friedberg1:30

       So I'm going all in.

   22. JCJason Calacanis1:30

       It's a pretty big deal.

   23. DFDavid Friedberg1:32

       Let your winners ride. Rain Man, David Sachs. I'm going all in. And it's sad. We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

   24. JCJason Calacanis1:44

       Love USH.

   25. DFDavid Friedberg1:45

       Queen of quinoa. I'm going all in.

   26. JCJason Calacanis1:48

       And then of course, ah, the one, the only, he puts the bizarre in czar, David Sachs-

   27. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:57

       (laughs)

   28. JCJason Calacanis1:57

       ... calling in from his-

   29. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:59

       His sucker, his over czar.

   30. DSDavid Sacks2:01

       You got that backwards. It's- it's you put the czar in bizarre, not the bizarre in czar.
2. 2:23 – 25:26

   H-1B overhaul: origins and exploitation

   1. JCJason Calacanis2:23

      listen. The topic of the week, H-1B visas are being overhauled. Trump administration announced a new $100,000 fee for all future H-1B applications. It's a one-time fee. There's been a little confusion about it, uh, in the details, but you know, that's how they, they do things in the 47th. Uh, just some excitement, a big announcement, and then we, we figure out the details. Lutnick originally said it would be 100,000 a year, but then the White House clarified it will be a one-time fee. This is a huge jump. The current fee is nothing. It's like two to five K that you pay to the government. You might pay a lawyer, you know, double that or triple that to, to do the work for you if you're a big corporation. Um, but, um, you know, this, this hits on a lot of the Trump campaign promises, tougher on immigration, looking out for US workers. We've talked before here about the abuse, uh, in the H-1B system. I'll give some of my personal, um, you know, insights in that after I- I, maybe I throw to you, Chamath. And before I do, they had an interesting polymarket. Will courts block Trump's 100K H-1B by September 30th? 3% chance of that happening. So it looks like everybody's kind of aligned with then, with this program. All right, Sachs. Uh, I know you're on the road, but your, your, your fans demand to hear your take on this. What, what's, what's your take?

   2. DSDavid Sacks3:41

      I think it's a good idea to have this $100,000 fee, and I'll tell you the reason why is because right now there's something like five times as many H-1B applications as there are slots. So I think they grant about 85,000 H-1Bs a year, and many more apply for it. And as a result, they have a lottery where they just kind of, I guess they randomly choose who the winners are gonna be. And if you look over the past decade, roughly half the H-1Bs go to these like IT consulting firms.

   3. JCJason Calacanis4:15

      Yes.

   4. DSDavid Sacks4:15

      And the average salary is like $65,000 a year. So, it kind of puts the lie to this idea that you hear that H-1Bs are for like high-skilled engineers, AI researchers, things like that. That's not in practice what happens. Uh, in practice what happens is you have this lottery and a huge chunk of them end up going to low-end IT jobs. And I think by putting this $100,000 fee on it, you encourage the applications to go to the actual higher-skilled, higher-paid jobs where there's actually a shortage of Americans. And you encourage US companies to try to fill those jobs with Americans first. And so I think, you know, putting aside some of the, the details, I think the big picture here is that they're using market forces to put some scarcity around the H-1B application. And I think what that's gonna do is encourage applicants to, to actually be these higher-paid, higher-skilled jobs that the program is supposed to be for, instead of these lower-end IT chop shops.

   5. JCJason Calacanis5:19

      Yeah, these are supposed to be for highly specialized workers. I can tell you-... you know, in relation to IT and consulting has always been about saving money. And the truth is, it's been abused. And I talked about this in 2015 on CNBC, Chamath, when Trump first started to talk about it. He's been on this for a while, and, uh, it's just great to see them... I- I had suggested 20K a year, and that's kind of where they wound up. I additionally think they should do an auction for one-third of these. Let all these big tech companies that are truly trying to get in very unique PhDs from Oxford in AI, man, let them just put out how many they want to buy and at what price, do a reverse auction, and fill one-third of them with, I don't know, maybe OpenAI or xAI, or Microsoft jumps the fence and pays a 100K, 200K per person. What do you think, Chamath, just broadly speaking on this and, uh, the policy, the abuse, everything?

   6. CPChamath Palihapitiya6:57

      I came to the United States initially on a TN visa, which is the NAFTA visa between Canada and America. And then I switched to an H-1B, and then I got my green card and my citizenship in the early 2010s. Elon came in on an H-1B, Sundar Pichai came on an H-1B, Satya Nadella came in on an H-1B. There's a lot of folks that have done a lot of good things that have used this specific visa. That being said, I think Sax is right that people have found an end around and have been abusing this H-1B system. There was an incredibly exhaustive thread by Robert Sterling, I think it was about a year ago, but I wanted to use that as a jumping off point to explain a couple of reasons why I think that there's been rampant abuse. The first thing is the H-1B program is supposed to be 85,000 visas a year. But here's the data. And so what you see is that in many years, including the last several, it's been upwards of 10 times that number. And so there are a lot of people that are getting shoehorned into this program. And when you see this, you can start to see why a lot of people are saying that there is wage suppression and that it's taking away from American jobs. Because if the program was meant to be for 85,000, you would think, "Well, listen, that's a drop in the bucket." Nobody would feel that in the American economy. But when you start talking about almost a million people a year, 600,000 to a million a year, that starts to be perceptible. And that is absorbing a lot of revenue and wages that would otherwise go to domestic-born and legal immigrants that are already here. So, that's thing number one. Thing number two is, there was a myth that these H-1Bs were these extremely highly skilled people. And what Robert found out in the data is that actually, no, it's not really that case. And so I think the average salary, I just want to get this exactly right, it's slightly under $120,000. Now, if you started to tell me that these were the best in class PhDs in all of these whiz bang industries where the companies are raising billions and billions of dollars, you guys already know that this salary would not pass the smell test. Most executive assistants at tech startups make more than $119,000 a year. So, the idea that some qualified grad is making this should already sort of set off alarm bells that maybe where there's smoke, there's fire. So, that's the second thing. So number one, we've been over-allocating by 5 to 10X. Number two, these salaries aren't these incredible salaries that you think of, which tends to mean that there is the potential, as Jason, you said, in- some form of indentured servitude and wage suppression. That's not good. And then the third thing is, you would ask the question, well, who gets these things? And it turns out, as Sax said, a large plurality of these visas don't actually go to American companies that are looking to hire talent to make this American business do better. These are foreign companies that are arbitraging labor and bringing people in...

   7. JCJason Calacanis10:25

      So crazy.

   8. CPChamath Palihapitiya10:26

      Cognizant is not an American business.

   9. JCJason Calacanis10:28

      Tata. (laughs)

   10. CPChamath Palihapitiya10:28

       Infosys is not an American business. Tata, Wipro. It's not to say that that in and of itself is wrong, but you need to find the right visa class to do this under.

   11. JCJason Calacanis10:39

       Yeah, they're hacking it.

   12. CPChamath Palihapitiya10:40

       And so when you put all of this together, I think the sort of broad takeaway is from where this started and what it was intended to do, we've deviated pretty wildly, and I think that this is a very important reset. Now, the last comment I want to make is about the people that say, "Hold on, we are going to cut our nose off to spite our face, and it's going to stop an inflow of incredible talent." And what I would just remind people is that it is really important to remember that when you are in the United States for a master's or PhD, you already get an automatic visa. It's called OPT. So, you have multiple years when you graduate from a useful degree program in the United States to find a job. I have several of these folks that work for me at 80/90. These are incredible grads from Carnegie Mellon. They are off-the-chart smart. But because they did a master's or a PhD, they come with a couple of years, and you can oftentimes extend that, and that will give us a very good amount of time to figure out how exceptional they are. And then quite honestly, I would gladly pay the $100,000 to get these guys on an H-1B program. So, I think if we're going to try to return this to what it was meant to be, which is to help American companies excel, get the best and the brightest, these changes, I think, are very good measures to course correct and get us towards that.

   13. JCJason Calacanis12:06

       And to just give people the history of this, this was something that was started after World War II.... to get really specialized people, like Polish and German, like, geniuses building out rockets and... I had a really interesting discussion, if you could pull this tweet up. There's another sinister wrinkle to this. I had, um, this gentleman, uh, Colin, on and he went to apply for a product manager. I had him on this week in startups, my other podcast. And he applied and sent a resume with the reference number to the specific job, Friedberg, that he wanted at a company, New Relic. And he did this because in order to have an H-1B visa, you have to put the job in a newspaper, right? So, what these companies allegedly are doing is putting these jobs in these, like, obscure newspapers so that Americans don't see them. They're not putting them in places, you know, that you might see them, and there's a group of Americans who are going and finding these jobs and saying to Americans, "Go ahead and apply. Here's the shadow jobs." I think is what they call them. And so he put the reference number in there, and they wouldn't even interview him. And I talked to him, and he's kind of crestfallen. He's like, "You know, I- um, I would like to apply for this job, but it's obvious that I can't get into it." This is, like, I think just shows the entitlement of these tech companies, and I don't know New Relic's position on this. They, they can email us and I'll give it in the next episode, but they're basically listing fake jobs. And, uh, somebody, Abby from People Ops over there just kind of doesn't even let him interview for the job. The whole thing is just really dirty at the, at the low end. And at the high end, it's under-monetized. So, Friedberg, your thoughts on this? I know you have a lot of friends. You're an immigrant yourself. I'm not sure how you got here and, and what visa you came under, but I think you came when you were a kid, right? I'm not sure what your parents came under, but what are your thoughts on this and the impact it might have?

   14. CPChamath Palihapitiya14:00

       Well, I think there should be two separate programs for what we could call highly skilled workers. Wh- what you were referring to, at the end of World War II, there was a secret US operation called Operation Paperclip, where we tried to recruit German scientists and engineers. Between 1945 and 1959, America recruited, I think, 1,600 of these scientists. So, it was both, call it, disabling to an American rival or adversary, but also expansive because that was when the nuclear industry was growing and much of nuclear science was being pioneered in the earlier days in Germany. And so the kind of American workforce expanded, but more importantly, a new industry was able to be enabled and unlocked and grown in the US, and then j- the, the, the German state was disabled by losing these scientists. One could make the case that a similar sort of scenario should exist today, that we should have a second Operation Paperclip. And perhaps, it should be a continuing process rather than necessarily kind of this laissez-faire process that we have today, where we identify some of the top industries and the top scientists in these top, top domains and go after those scientists proactively with government action, government support in partnership with private industry. If you look at papers being published across mainstream scientific journals, the majority of papers today across nearly every scientific domain are being published out of China. And this ranges from physics to chemistry to material science to biotech, and there's a real case to be made that perhaps those scientists would be better off and America would be better off if they were doing their research, pioneering here rather than there.

   15. JCJason Calacanis15:51

       Yeah.

   16. CPChamath Palihapitiya15:52

       Uh, so I think that there's a very good strategic case to be made that perhaps, like, a more directed, high energy, high effort kind of Operation Paperclip be undertaken again around the world. The H-1B program, I do agree, has been heavily abused as a way of kind of compensation arbitrage, and, you know, if you find a, a high- highly qualified excellent talent, as we all know, for a high-skilled laborer in engineering or science today, that person, if you amortize the H-1B over seven years at 100K, that application fee, that's 15K a year, call it. That certainly seems worth it for the right sort of talent and it forces the question about can this person be found in the United States or not? The alternative would be to force a higher salary range, such that you as a company are now basically being forced to pay a higher salary, which means you have to justify that this person is worth it to bring them in from ex-US and you can't find the talent locally. I'll tell you a program where we do this where it doesn't work in the US is called the H-2A program. This is the immigrant farmworker program that we use for temporary labor on farms. And the way that program is set up today is you have to pay the farmworker that comes in on an H-2A some amount over minimum wage, and the amount that you have to pay over minimum wage is a function of the average wage in that state across all industry. In the case of Florida, they're paying five to ten dollars over minimum wage for farmworkers, and they cannot get any Americans to work on the farm. And they're being forced to pay five to ten dollars overage. And by the way, these farmers and these farm businesses are being heavily subsidized by the government. One way to think about the ridiculousness of what's going on is the US taxpayer is paying a premium salary to foreign workers. What we should be doing is enabling, when there's no workers available in the US, we should be enabling a free flow of labor, but only in the case where there's no workers available in the US. But there is a downside to that model, as we're now seeing in the, in the ag industry. Farmers are losing money across the board, and they're having to pay a premium for foreign workers to come and work on the farm, and they can't get US workers. There's two sides to the sword on this, is my point. But I do think this Operation Paperclip notion should be taken on as a separate kind of strategic mandate.

   17. JCJason Calacanis18:07

       Absolutely, yeah. And that was... A- a lot of the Jewish scientists had already fled Germany.

   18. CPChamath Palihapitiya18:12

       That's right.

   19. JCJason Calacanis18:12

       My understanding, Paperclip was for the Nazis, the former Nazi scientists.

   20. CPChamath Palihapitiya18:17

       That's right.

   21. JCJason Calacanis18:17

       And they were working on some pretty dark and...... cutting edge stuff in chemical and biological. It just wasn't rockets, right?

   22. CPChamath Palihapitiya18:24

       Well, it was everything.

   23. JCJason Calacanis18:25

       It was everything.

   24. CPChamath Palihapitiya18:25

       Remember, at this era, we were just developing quantum theory, and quantum theory led to nuclear science, which led to the development of the atomic bomb, so yeah, I think Operation Paper Clip was pretty far-reaching. But today, as an American, do you really want all of the cutting edge research in material science, in physics, in chemistry, et cetera to accrue to China, or should we be thoughtful about it? It's intellectual talent that's making these breakthroughs. It's not necessarily institutional capacity. It's not like they have better institutions per se than we do. We have amazing institutions, amazing capacity, amazing place to live-

   25. JCJason Calacanis18:59

       Yeah.

   26. CPChamath Palihapitiya18:59

       ... and so on. So, there's a real kind of mandate that we should probably think about undertaking here, not just for extension of our industry base, industrial base, but also for disabling what we would consider rivals, or what America might consider rivals.

   27. DSDavid Sacks19:10

       Just on this Operation Paper Clip point, it's interesting that China, the Chinese government took away the passports of the engineers at DeepSeek-

   28. CPChamath Palihapitiya19:22

       Mm.

   29. DSDavid Sacks19:22

       ... after, uh, the launch of that model, or at least it was publicly reported. I can't attest to this from firsthand knowledge, but there were definitely a lot of reports about this, and you can see why. I mean, if we could recruit or snap up a few hundred or at most a couple of thousand of these top AI engineers, that'd be a game changer-

   30. CPChamath Palihapitiya19:44

       Totally.
3. 25:26 – 43:42

   Autism linked to Tylenol usage during pregnancy

   1. JCJason Calacanis25:26

      Freeburg, some major news, uh, in science this week. Let's talk about autism and the press conference that happened this week with Bobby Kennedy and President Trump. Here is the chart. Autism has increased dramatically over the years. There's a big debate of what's causing this, and there's obviously correlations, there's causations, there is the testing of this, and maybe we're just testing, uh, a little bit too loosely around this. But we went from one in 10,000 in 1970, to one in 1,000 in 1995, to one in 32 in 2022. The press conference, Freeburg, was a little spicy and unique, performative maybe, w- were some of the criticisms, but there's a real issue here, and why don't you take us through it and educate us so we can kinda get to reality? 'Cause the press is having a field day with this, obviously on both sides.

   2. CPChamath Palihapitiya26:17

      I think autism, just like Alzheimer's, there may be several underlying conditions that lead to what we would call the phenotype of autism. That is what we all observe as autism. You know, it's considered a spectrum disorder. There's many different variations of it. There may actually be many different underlying conditions, or underlying drivers, biological drivers that are causing it. One of the drivers that came up during the press conference and in the subsequent interviews that Marty Makary, head of the FDA, has done, is that they've identified and shared papers that have been out for some time, that there is a receptor that absorbs folate, a type of vitamin B, and that that folate receptor may be attacked by the immune system, and as a result, you can't really uptake vitamin B. And so those cells dysfunction, and when those cells are dysfunctional, you end up having what looks like what we call autism. And so one of the things that they announced is they're gonna work on getting the label updated for leucovorin, which will resolve, for many people, the, uh, folate, uh, receptor issue. The other thing they, they brought up is a paper that was done by Andrea Baccarelli, who's dean of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. This paper is, is a bit old, where he took several studies and analyzed them and showed that across 46 studies, nine of them showed no association with acetaminophen, the main active ingredient in Tylenol, four showed a negative association, meaning it was actually protective and good for the fetus, and 27 had a slightly positive association, which means that it was having some contributory effect to both ADHD and autism spectrum disorder when women would take acetaminophen while pregnant. And Nick, if you wanna just pull up that image from the paper, this is the original paper that was published by, uh, Baccarelli. So again, he didn't do any primary research. He didn't actually go and study patients. He took the data from 46 other studies, and then he added it all together to run this kind of macro analysis. And you can see here that he showed some risk. There's no specific way to quantify that risk, but there's some increased risk of having attention deficit hyperactivity or autism as a result of taking acetaminophen while pregnant. Now, I think autism, again, one of the underlyings might be this autoimmune condition associated with the folate receptor. What causes autoimmunity is a whole nother conversation, and we can get into the vaccine stuff if you guys want to, because there's, uh, obviously a lot of conversations going on right now about the immune system being primed to have kind of an auto antibody response. But, uh, there may be other things contributing to it. So I think it's pretty clear that our modern world, in the last couple of decades, there's a cumulative effect of environmental exposures that children are getting. Whether it's microplastics, whether it's chemicals in the food, whether it's just the environmental exposure in the air related to small molecules, whether it's related to other things we're putting in our body, every one of these things, the way to think about it is maybe if it has a positive effect, it might increase your chance of autism by 0.05%, and then another thing might increase your chance by 0.07%, and so on and so forth. And so when you add up all the things in our environment, there may be a cumulative effect that has a result in different underlying conditions in our body that may result in what looks like things that we call autism. And so none of these are very specific, there's one shot and one path-

   3. JCJason Calacanis29:57

      Okay.

   4. CPChamath Palihapitiya29:57

      ... and one specific thing, and I, I think that's very important.

   5. JCJason Calacanis30:00

      Yeah. Let me just, um, ask two clarifying questions, really lightning round for you, Freeburg. Number one, for the audience, how is autism diagnosed in these studies? Is there a blood test, a genetic test, or is it just a bunch of questions? I know the answer, but I, I wanted you to clarify it for everybody. And then how does this, the geographical differences in (laughs) autism, just like we saw with-

   6. CPChamath Palihapitiya30:26

      ... trans kids. You know, there's many in certain cities and none in others. So, maybe you could talk a little bit about those two issues-

   7. Yeah.

   8. ... which I think many people have been talking about.

   9. So, I don't think that there's one specific diagnostic test for autism, as if it was one disease. Again, th- these are phenotypes, these are behaviors that-

   10. Yes.

   11. ... are being measured, that people call Autism Spectrum Disorder. And so, the diagnostic criteria falls under a set of screening and behavioral tests that go on. And, um, you know, one of the things that-

   12. A survey?

   13. There- there's a survey.

   14. A field.

   15. There's an observation.

   16. A survey, yeah.

   17. And there's a bunch of things that get filled out to make a-

   18. Is it, is it like a score? Is it a score?

   19. Yeah. So, it's, there's a scoring system, exactly. And so then, there's different levels.

   20. What did you and Zach score? Yeah, where are you guys? 'Cause we could, we could bet. Hold on, before you tell us, Chamath and I are gonna bet on it.

   21. (laughs)

   22. I'm gonna say that Zach's beat Freeberg-

   23. What's it, make it over/under?

   24. ... by 16 points.

   25. Make it, make it over/under. (laughs)

   26. Over/under? I think these guys are ... well, let's, who's gone, who's highest on the spectrum? (laughs)

   27. Well, Zach's may have gotten in the 90th percentile.

   28. He's definitely in the 90th percent-

   29. Oh, God.

   30. ... I put Freeberg in the 70%.
4. 43:42 – 59:21

   Jimmy Kimmel returns to ABC: comments and reactions

   1. JCJason Calacanis43:42

      probably makes sense. All right. We've got a lot of news in the censorship space. So this is This Week in Censorship. So much to talk about. First story up, Jimmy Kimmel is back on the air. Earlier this week, Disney announced that ABC would resume airing Kimmel's show, and I think that was Tuesday night. Disney explained why they suspended Kimmel last week, "To avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country." And they called Kimmel's comments, "Ill-timed and thus insensitive." He came back and had a massive amount of reach, but Nexstar and Sinclair's affiliates, they decided to not air it, and that was 60% of the market, so interesting. Polymarket had Jimmy Kim- Jimmy Kimmel cancel by September 30th. It was nearly 80% after Kimmel was suspended last week, but that's plummeted to 1% since then. It was quite emotional, and, um, I'm guessing everybody watched it, and, um-

   2. Yeah, I did not. I did not watch it.

   3. Oh, you didn't watch it? Okay. We'll play a clip here. It was, I felt-

   4. You should watch, you should watch what he says.

   5. ... incredibly heartfelt and, yeah, it was incredibly heartfelt and deft in terms of its execution. It was sincere, and here it is.

   6. NANarrator44:54

      I don't think what I have to say is gonna make much of a difference. If you like me, you like me. If you don't, you don't. I have no illusions about changing anyone's mind. But I do wanna make something clear because it's important to me a- as a human, and that is, uh, y- you understand that it was never my intention to make light of the murder of a young man. (applause) Uh, I don't ... I don't think there's anything funny about it. I, I posted a message on Instagram on the day he was killed sending love to his family and asking for compassion, and I meant it, and I still do. Uh, nor was it my intention to blame any specific group for the actions of what it was obviously a deeply disturbed individual. That was really the opposite of the point I was trying to make. But I understand that to some, that felt either ill-timed or unclear or maybe both. And for those who think I did, uh, point a finger, I get why you're upset. If the situation was reversed, there's a good chance I'd have felt the same way. I have many friends and family members on the other side who I love and remain close to, even though we don't agree on politics at all. I don't think the murderer who shot Charlie Kirk represents anyone. This was a sick person who believed violence was a solution, and it isn't, e- ever.

   7. JCJason Calacanis46:11

      Yeah, and he, uh, references later in this apology of sorts, I think it was pretty, pretty clear he was apologizing. His own faith is Christianity and, um, just how beautiful it was that the widow of Charlie Kirk had forgiven the shooter, and he got broken up about that as well. He then went on to do a bunch of jokes and have a normal show. It was massive ratings. Obviously, everybody was tuned into it, and we'll see where it goes from here.

   8. He didn't apologize. I didn't hear an apology.

   9. Um, okay.

   10. Did he apologize? Do you know-

   11. I, I take that as an apology.

   12. ... what that means in, in the English language? My understanding, if you look at Twitter and stuff, was that there was not technically an apology.

   13. Okay.

   14. DSDavid Sacks46:53

       He didn't apologize, and he didn't say what he had done wrong. I guess what he said is that, "I didn't mean to make light of-"

   15. JCJason Calacanis46:59

       It wasn't my intent.

   16. DSDavid Sacks47:00

       "... the situation."

   17. JCJason Calacanis47:00

       Yeah. It wasn't my intent.

   18. It wasn't his intent, but-

   19. DSDavid Sacks47:02

       It wasn't his intent, but-

   20. JCJason Calacanis47:02

       So it was an explanation more than an apology? Okay.

   21. DSDavid Sacks47:06

       Nobody was accusing him of making light of the murder. What he did, and what people were upset about, is that he lied and said that the shooter was MAGA, and he did not hit the nail on the head in terms of addressing that. And he's being called out for that. Now, look, I still think that his statement there, let's call it an apology, was constructive and positive because at least he is showing empathy towards the other side. He obviously feels bad for Erika Kirk and for Charlie Kirk, and in the current overheated political environment, just expressing empathy for the other side is a positive statement. And I think he definitely brought the temperature down. And I think later in the statement, he also makes an important point about, he says, you know, "Just selfishly, I have threats on me." And what he was basically saying is, "Look, we don't wanna get into a civil war here. We don't want to get into a cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation. Let's not play Hatfields and McCoys." This is my words. He didn't say this, but that was sort of the intimation of what he was saying, and I think that is a good thing to say. I mean, no one here should want a civil war, and this thing could go off the rails really badly. So, look, I think that his statements were positive and, and, and welcome, and they showed empathy for the other side, but he did not...... fess up to what he really did wrong here, which was to claim that the shooter was MAGA. That was the thing that was deeply offensive.

   22. JCJason Calacanis48:41

       That's... Yeah.

   23. DSDavid Sacks48:42

       And hold on. A- a- and the reason why he did that is he was not the only one doing it. In the early days of this shooting, of this assassination, it was a talking point on the left that the shooter could be right-wing. And the reason why people on the left were saying that is it was exculpatory. It was basically to put the blame on the other side instead of looking in the mirror and copping to the fact that there is this rise of left-wing political violence and assassination culture. As we demonstrated on the pod last week, by looking at all the data and all the numbers, there really is this poisonous ideology that is on the left, and yes, there's some of it on the right but way more of it on the left, that political violence can be used to solve problems. And the left really does need to look in the mirror and rid itself of that ideology. And by not admitting that this assassin was motivated by that ideology, they are ignoring that opportunity for self-reflection and for progress.

   24. JCJason Calacanis49:43

       That last part is important. I think the point is that when you say that somebody is mentally deranged, what most normal people do is then say, "Oh, it was an aberration. It was an outlier." And I think that that is a dangerous way to try to sweep under the rug what is something that's more virulent and is increasingly acceptable in society.

   25. DSDavid Sacks50:06

       This guy might have been crazy in the sense that he was willing to use murder to achieve his objectives. I think we can all say on some level that's crazy. It doesn't mean he wasn't animated by an ideology that lots of people believe, and I think the proof of this was the celebratory reaction to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. You saw it on TikTok, you saw it on Blue Sky, you saw it on just corners of social media. You definitely saw it on Reddit, where you had thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk and basically buying into this i- idea of political violence as a solution to their problem, and to the idea that it was acceptable to use violence against people they hated. And so, again, this is the problem with the random nut theory, is that it really ignores all the evidence we have about the larger reaction to the Charlie Kirk assassination. And this is a thing that the left really doesn't wanna confront. It does not wanna look in the mirror here and say that we have a problem on the left with this assassination culture, and we talked about this last week. And if you look at polling, they just did polling, uh, around this, and there's still millions of people on the left who believe that the shooter was MAGA. And Jimmy Kimmel helped foster that belief with this disinformation that he put out there, and he really should've hit the nail on the head in terms of saying that he got that wrong, that it was wrong to say that, and he, he could've been a little bit clearer about that. I'm not dismissing the positive things he said, because I do think it was good for him to show that... I mean, I'm gonna give him credit for getting emotional. I don't, I know a lot of people on the right think that it wasn't sincere. I think that it probably was sincere. I'm gonna give him credit for that. I think his comments were constructive, but he did not apologize for the thing he actually did wrong.

   26. JCJason Calacanis51:57

       Hm.

   27. DSDavid Sacks51:57

       And in fact, he just replaced that original lie with a new form of left-wing spin, which was the random nut theory.

   28. JCJason Calacanis52:05

       Okay.

   29. DSDavid Sacks52:05

       And I think... Yeah, let me stop there, but the, but the point is that really we need to come to grips with the fact that there is this toxic political ideology now that's mostly on the left that does need to be confronted.

   30. JCJason Calacanis52:18

       I'm gonna go ahead and say, you know, we, we should clean up a little bit here, or I'm gonna clean up. He should have, I think, made it clear that this wasn't a MAGA person, but I'm just gonna repeat the quote, "We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it." Now, he should have said, "That turned out not to be true. It was actually a liberal," and I think it was not that he said the guy was MAGA. He said people were speculating he was MAGA. That actually was true. So just to be clear here, he never said the person was MAGA. He said-
5. 59:21 – 1:09:00

   Two major AI papers

   1. DSDavid Sacks59:21

      a country.

   2. JCJason Calacanis59:21

      Okay. JCal and Chamath both had to run. We started late today and we ran a little bit too long for both of them. Sacks and I are gonna wrap it up with a quick conversation on AI. Sacks, I don't know if you saw, but there were two papers that were published this week, each of which on their own I would say were, were pretty kind of important. I'll highlight the first one. And Nick, if you could just pull this first one up. This is the MIT paper. So this paper is called Teaching LLMs to Plan. And effectively, what this, uh, team did... and again, they were out of MIT in collaboration with a scientist at Microsoft AI in Mountain View, they basically created an instruction tuning framework that teaches LLMs to do symbolic planning, which basically means that the LLMs think about step by step or chain of thought in a smarter way by making them generate explicit state action state chains, and then they trained that model by giving them feedback with an external plan validator, which is effectively gonna be a human or, or a software tool that says, "Did this series of steps make sense to do the thing you're trying to do? If not, here's what you did wrong, here's what you should have done better." And they were able to achieve planning accuracy of up to 94%.

   3. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:00:43

      ... on some standardized benchmarks that are used for chain of thought reasoning and planning using LLMs. This is a 66% absolute improvement over baseline models, and so this is pretty substantial. They took LLaMA 3 and they were able to increase the performance from 1% to 64%. The outcome of this basically is that this sort of a system can be used to train LLMs to do better reasoning and better chain of thought in such a dramatic way that LLMs will look like they are starting to reason. And so by training them effectively on the steps in planning on how to reason, the LLMs get better at looking like they're doing reasoning using this kind of symbolic planning method that they then built a tuning framework around. That sounded a little bit complicated, but I think ultimately what it translates to is they figured out a method to get AI to act in a more reasoned way in developing step-by-step plans and execute against those plans, and the results and the benchmarks are incredible. So this was a big breakthrough, I would say, this week, Sax. I don't know if you've spent any time looking at this paper from MIT or talked with your team about it.

   4. DSDavid Sacks1:01:48

      I haven't seen it. But w- what exactly is this symbolic framework they're talking about exact- you know, what, what exactly is that, that... I mean, I understand chain of thought, but what is it that, that improves the accuracy?

   5. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:01:59

      There's an old language called PDDL or Planning Domain Definition Language. PDDL is kind of a s- uh, an attempt to standardize AI planning languages. So it's been around for a long time. I think it's been around since, like, the late '90s, and it's effectively a series of symbols that define planning. What they were then doing is basically using PDDL to try and set a series of steps that the LLM would use to reason and get to an answer on doing a task or, or running an action, and then they tuned the PDDL using this tuning framework that they developed, giving it feedback, and then they also fed it good plans and bad plans and said, "This is a good plan. This is a bad plan." And so overall, the LLM was then run in such a way that it actually had a better set of steps that it would use to solve a particular problem. And so this can then lead to all of the underlying machinery of an LLM being better utilized to solve a bigger problem, to solve kind of a, a chain of thought, or to solve some reasoning problem that requires several steps or planning. I think it was a very good breakthrough. The, the benchmark data that they shared was pretty impressive, and it's getting quite a bit of attention this week. That was one, I think, really interesting paper that came out this week. The other one, and, Nick, maybe you can pull this one up. So this one's really impressive, Sax. This comes from a team in Germany. This paper was published in the journal Nature Computational Science. These folks took a GPU, and for each token, typically you'll have the entire key value chain transferred from high bandwidth memory to cache memory, so this means that you're moving a lot of data between one type of memory and another type of memory. And what they were able to do is they were actually able to reduce the physical memory size that's needed to run the attention window. As a result, the energy and the total token cost to run inference went down significantly. I'm trying to simplify this down as best I can, but what matters is the, the end data that they provided. Their architecture led to a speed-up of 7,000X compared to the NVIDIA Jetson Nano, 300X compared with NVIDIA RTX 4090, and then 100X compared to the NVIDIA H100, and the energy was reduced by 40,000X compared to Jetson Nano, 90,000X compared to RTX 4090, and a 70,000X energy reduction for the same outcome over an H100. So I think that this mechanism, if it scales, this new kind of technique could have a pretty dramatic effect on the energy consumption needed to run AI. And importantly, because you need far less memory, you can actually move a lot of AI inference to the edge of the network, meaning you could put, for example, a very high-powered LLM model that could be run in a robot or in a piece of equipment or in a computer or on your phone, that historically you'd need to run in a data center because you needed a very high-powered GPU chip stack. And so this architecture, I think, could be one of these big architectural breakthroughs. We've spoken with Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt and Sundar and Demis about the big architectural breakthroughs that are coming in AI that could ultimately lead to many orders of magnitude reduction in the energy cost needed to run inference and to run AI models. Again, if this scales, then all of our assumptions about the data center, about the energy can start to kind of be thought about under this new kind of architectural framework, which might naturally result in much, much lower need states. We'll see, but it was a really, I think, important paper, and folks are gonna look up this paper and say this could be a pivot point in how we think about the energy and infrastructure needs to support AI. I don't know if you and your team have reviewed it, but it's definitely worth spending some time on.

   6. DSDavid Sacks1:06:02

      Yeah. Look, I think the writing was on the wall that models are going to get smaller and smaller and more efficient to the point where they can run on the edge on local devices. I mean, that was one of the implications of DeepSeek. But if you look more recently at, I think the launch of LLaMA 4, their smallest model, I think it's called Scout-

   7. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:06:26

      Mm-hmm.

   8. DSDavid Sacks1:06:26

      ... runs on a single GPU.

   9. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:06:28

      Right.

   10. DSDavid Sacks1:06:28

       So I think we're gonna have a whole range of smart devices that will have a single GPU running a pretty decent AI model, and, uh, I mean obviously your phone will have one too, probably a much better one.

   11. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:06:44

       Have you and your team talked about, like, what the energy demand curve looks like as these better architectures ... Like, if we're talking about 10,000 X reduction in energy to run a token, have you guys thought about, well, you know, does energy scale as we've projected it to scale? Does data center needs scale like we've projected it to? Or do you think that because they're more efficient we'll actually have more demand?

   12. DSDavid Sacks1:07:03

       That just sounds a little too good to be true right now.

   13. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:07:05

       Right.

   14. DSDavid Sacks1:07:06

       As between papers and products, I pay a lot of attention to the launch of products. I don't pay a lot of attention to papers.

   15. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:07:13

       Right.

   16. DSDavid Sacks1:07:14

       I know that some papers end up being really important. For example, the paper on the transformer architecture back in 2017 turned out to be enormously important, but I think that a lot of papers just don't really go anywhere for whatever reason.

   17. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:07:29

       Right.

   18. DSDavid Sacks1:07:29

       Maybe th- they're hard to reproduce, or they don't scale, what have you. So, I just don't really pay that much attention to the academic literature. I do pay a lot of attention to product launches and when someone launches something revolutionary that immediately gets everyone's attention because you don't have to speculate about whether a proof of concept's gonna be possible or not. You actually see it. I guess what I'm saying is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

   19. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:07:52

       Right.

   20. DSDavid Sacks1:07:52

       I think we're gonna need a lot more power, a lot more electricity. I think that's pretty well known. We haven't even gotten to the robot revolution yet. That's coming in the next five years. That's gonna be energy-intensive, so ...

   21. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:08:04

       If this thing's even close to being correct, then you could run the most, kind of, sophisticated LLMs in a robot without it needing to be run out of a data center going forward. And the robots can simply make a request for information from the internet that they need, but all of the actual-

   22. DSDavid Sacks1:08:24

       Mm-hmm.

   23. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:08:24

       ... computation, the reasoning, uh, all of the base knowledge would sit locally in that device. It's really incredible to think about. Like-

   24. DSDavid Sacks1:08:31

       Yeah.

   25. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:08:31

       ... we are gonna end up with these, like, robots. It's amazing.

   26. DSDavid Sacks1:08:34

       Yeah.

   27. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:08:35

       Yeah.

   28. DSDavid Sacks1:08:35

       Well, I think that's right. I mean, I think that self-driving wouldn't work if you had to run all the inference on the cloud. I mean-

   29. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:08:42

       Right.

   30. DSDavid Sacks1:08:42

       ... it's run locally, right, by powerful AI chips, and then obviously it can connect when it needs to. But no, I would expect that robots are gonna have a local AI model.
6. 1:09:00 – 1:12:53

   YouTube update

   1. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:09:00

      this week.

   2. DSDavid Sacks1:09:01

      Hey, Freeberg, what exactly happened with YouTube? Do you have an update on what happened with our episodes from All In Summit that appeared to be shadowbanned?

   3. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:09:10

      Uh, yes.

   4. DSDavid Sacks1:09:10

      Yeah, tell us what happened there.

   5. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:09:11

      Okay. So, thank you to the folks at YouTube. They actually worked all weekend to help us figure out what happened, and there was nothing nefarious. There was no shadowbanning going on. What happened was, you guys may recall a couple of months ago, we stopped bleeping out curse words in our episodes, and we muted them instead. And when we muted them, the YouTube algorithm still thought that we were saying the curse word quietly, and it still showed up in the YouTube transcript. When you have a curse word in a video, YouTube marks it as restricted, so it's kind of not age-appropriate and so that's why it was getting the restricted mark. When we went back, the episodes that did get restricted all had a curse word in them, and we understand clearly what happened. So, going forward, we are gonna use the bleeping again instead of just muting. It was very benign, not nefarious. YouTube did a great job supporting us. We went back and fixed all the old episodes, so they're all out of restricted mode, and we started reposting all of our summit videos again. So, yeah, I mean, conspiracy corner is closed on that one.

   6. DSDavid Sacks1:10:10

      Well, hold on. Do creators know about this, that if you have F-bombs in your show that you go onto restricted mode?

   7. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:10:18

      You know, that's a great question. There's no, and we were talking to the YouTube product team about this, there's no easy way for YouTube creators to see that a video has been tagged as restricted, and so they need to fix that. They're going to fix that, they told us, and so I think we should all kind of continue to hold them to that because it's important that ... Creators don't know why. One of the questions we had for them, which we thought was a theory, was if people report your video, does it automatically go into restricted mode? And the answer is no. So, the reporting triggers a review separately, but the restricted ro- mode algorithm is distinct. But when it comes to this, like, restricted mode being triggered, you don't know that it happened. You don't get a notice.

   8. DSDavid Sacks1:11:01

      Right.

   9. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:11:01

      You're not aware of it, and they need to address that, obviously.

   10. DSDavid Sacks1:11:04

       They need to have, like, a dashboard that shows you any kind of restriction on your videos and a reason code for why.

   11. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:11:11

       That's right-

   12. DSDavid Sacks1:11:11

       You know?

   13. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:11:12

       ... and specific timestamps 'cause they, their engineers were able to pull it up for us, look at the timestamps, point us to them, and we could see what happened. That should be apparent. Like, they should present that to the creators so they know why they got restricted. I think part of the argument was like, well, restricted mode in YouTube isn't a big deal. It turns out it is a big deal. We saw it in our traffic. We had big drop-off because a lot of network administrators, so the people that run the Wi-Fi at Starbucks or on your public bus and subway or in your, you know, office, they have a network setting that's called Safe Mode. And Safe Mode was originally designed to block porn or other not safe for work content at work, but it also triggers the restricted mode being blocked on YouTube. And so if you're adding one of those public networks and you're trying to access YouTube and you're in a restricted video, you lose that entire audience. So, it turns out, I think it actually is a bigger deal than folks realize that videos are getting tagged as restricted mode, at least I think it is, and they should do a better job kind of surfacing things. And then people should be able to go back in, creators, and correct any issues that might be causing that to be restricted.

   14. DSDavid Sacks1:12:14

       Yeah.

   15. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:12:15

       But I don't feel like the policy itself was bad. I think there was an algorithm problem where their software didn't pick up that we had muted bad words, and it was more apparent previously when we bleeped them, so we're gonna go back to bleeping until they fix the algorithm.

   16. DSDavid Sacks1:12:29

       And, and w- was there any weaponized reporting of content, or we just don't think that was a thing?

   17. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:12:34

       No. No.

   18. DSDavid Sacks1:12:35

       Okay.

   19. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:12:35

       We know that to not be true. We checked that. I checked that at the high level, and the answer is no. And I think we feel very good about that. There's no, like, mechanism either that if people do blast reporting or they try and, you know, as we used to joke, Brigadoon you-It doesn't actually trigger anything, so.

   20. DSDavid Sacks1:12:52

       Got it.

7. 1:12:53 – 1:19:10

   Alphabet admits to COVID censorship under Biden, new CA online hate speech law

   1. DSDavid Sacks1:12:53

      And speaking of YouTube, there was a really important report out this week where, I think we kinda knew this, but YouTube acknowledged that during the Biden administration, I think this was, like, roughly 2019 or 2022, that timeframe, that they censored, I think, something like a million videos at the behest of the Biden administration. I guess that would've started in 2021. And they admitted that they were pressured by the administration. It, Zuckerberg had said the same thing about Meta, and the Twitter files informed us about the same thing, but now YouTube has finally acknowledged that and there was a big release on that.

   2. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:13:32

      I'll tell you my view on this. I think that the censorship that happened during that era is very important to have happened because it has brought a light to it in a way that now there's a hyper sensitivity to it not happening again. And I actually think that that's very good. So the fact that it happened has now created a real sense that going forward the policy limits, the boundaries are now more clear than they ever were. It's not just about the Trump admin, which I think a lot of mainstream media tries to make it about, but it really is about the importance of free speech and, and, and censorship and who decides what's objective truth or not. I mean, going back to all of the COVID-era discussions, not allowing people to have discussions clearly is a problem. And, and speaking of this topic, I don't know if you saw this, but there is this kind of hate speech bill that passed-

   3. DSDavid Sacks1:14:22

      Yeah.

   4. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:14:22

      ... out of the Assembly and the Senate in California that's now on Gavin Newsom's desk to sign, which basically would fine social networks that allow content to show up on their social network that the State of California deems to be hate speech. And so whatever language or terms the State of California calls hate speech, and you could see how this could become a very slippery slope very fast, they can now fine a social media company millions of dollars, which in and of itself could actually propagate a whole new censorship regime where people that are using certain terms that in that era are considered bad terms or hate speech terms, they're afraid that they don't wanna get fined tens of millions of dollars, so they block all that content. And I do think that if this gets signed by Governor Newsom, it could trigger a whole new kind of censorship battle in the months and years ahead. We'll see.

   5. DSDavid Sacks1:15:12

      Well, th- I think that's exactly right. I think the bill you're referring to is SB771 and it is an EU-style suppression of, quote unquote, "hate speech" on social networks. The problem is that there is no definition of hate speech. That's not a category that exists. It's just whatever the people in power say it is.

   6. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:15:31

      That's right.

   7. DSDavid Sacks1:15:31

      And so there is no constitutional exception for hate speech under the First Amendment.

   8. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:15:38

      They reference in the bill, the California bill, 'cause I read it, civil rights statutes which speak to certain types of discrimination, certain types of hate speech. But the, to your point, those words are not defined. And so what ends up happening is you could say, "Well, using that word is discriminatory to this group in some way," or, "Using that word is hateful because it offends another group." And suddenly you start to blur the line between what the average person might call hate speech and what perhaps some people-

   9. DSDavid Sacks1:16:10

      Yeah.

   10. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:16:10

       ... in an administrative body are calling hate speech, and suddenly it becomes more like, hey, is this really a civil rights violation or is it just offensive content? And it's a very slippery slope that offensive content suddenly can get wrapped up and be called hate speech, and then the government starts to tell us all what we are and aren't allowed to see and say. And we're obviously seeing the repercussions of that in the UK right now where the police are knocking down doors to arrest people for, um, putting stuff on, uh, on Twitter.

   11. DSDavid Sacks1:16:40

       The direction I thought you were going in a minute ago was that it, it sounded like you were saying that it's good that we've learned all these lessons from this COVID period where YouTube-

   12. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:16:50

       That's right. (laughs)

   13. DSDavid Sacks1:16:51

       ... and Meta and X-

   14. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:16:51

       Even though I changed my mind. (laughs)

   15. DSDavid Sacks1:16:52

       Yeah, and I, I think that's exactly right. I don't see any evidence that the, I'd say especially the political left, has learned its lesson. You got Gavin Newsom now trying to ban hate speech in California. By the way, he also signed that bill, was it, like, a year ago banning parody. Remember that? Parody videos?

   16. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:17:13

       I do remember that.

   17. DSDavid Sacks1:17:14

       The, yeah. It was-

   18. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:17:14

       The political, political AI, it was, like, political AI videos.

   19. DSDavid Sacks1:17:17

       Yeah.

   20. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:17:18

       Yeah.

   21. DSDavid Sacks1:17:18

       Because it was in the wake of the, of a humorous fake advertisement for Kamala Harris. Then you've got these folks who on the left are already saying that Sinclair and Nextel need to be punished for not putting Jimmy Kimmel back on the air. So in other words, the same people who were saying a week ago that the Trump administration jawboned ABC Disney, that that was fascism, but if they jawbone Nextel and Sinclair, that's democracy. I mean, it's completely hypocritical. I'm not convinced anyone's learned a lesson from this. And just to be clear, I don't think Jimmy Kimmel should be taken off the air or censored or whatever. I'm pretty sure that his show's not gonna be back next year because it's got such low ratings. I don't think there's really a need to censor him. It is true that there is a public interest requirement for using public spectrum, but nobody seems to agree anymore on, on what's in the public interest, so.

   22. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:18:14

       I completely agree with what you said last time. We just gotta auction-

   23. DSDavid Sacks1:18:16

       Yeah.

   24. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:18:16

       ... off that spectrum. I don't think, we don't need that spectrum. We have the thing called the internet now, and so we no longer need broadcast television and there, there shouldn't be a government regulated-

   25. DSDavid Sacks1:18:26

       Right.

   26. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:18:27

       ... broadcast television system where they're deciding what is and isn't appropriate content and in the public interest. That just doesn't make sense for the government to do in a market that's supposed to fully support free speech.

   27. DSDavid Sacks1:18:40

       Yes.

   28. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:18:40

       And I agree. I agree. I think, I think the Jimmy Kimmel issue should be up to the people that are spending their money to put Jimmy Kimmel on the air and they can decide what they wanna do with... You know, if no one watches it, they'll take him off, and if people watch it, they'll keep him on. That's, that's their decision. We shouldn't-... you know, I don't think that it makes sense to, quote, cancel or ban someone for saying something that's offensive. And I think that if you do it on, uh, one side, eventually it'll happen on the other side. That- but that's a tried and true point in free speech advocacy, obviously.

Episode duration: 1:23:47