So we have biology here. And obviously biology is an expert in everything. But biology, you're used to being interviewed one on one. I've had you on my podcast a couple years ago, we had many great discussions, you've been on a bunch of other people's but today we'll see how you do on on the squad here with five people passing the ball.

You've listened to the pod before. Yeah, I'll pass. So 20% each or whatever. It's fine. Okay, perfect. Well, we will have all in stats. We'll get good luck trying to get 20% with this moderator. This says the guy who has the largest percentage. Look, you're you're supposed to be a non shooting point guard, Jason.

Nobody wants to see you brick three pointer after three pointer. Just bring the ball down the court and pass it just pass the ball. Just pass it. Get out of the way, Jason. That's coming from the guy who has 24% of the ball. 24% of airtime. David Sachs. Yeah, exactly.

I fit exactly what I'm supposed to be doing, which is one quarter is statistically proven. Rain man, David. Hey, everybody, welcome to another episode of the all in podcast with us again this week, Chamath Pali Hapatiya, the dictator in just a great sweater. And David Friedberg, you should touch this, you have no idea the material that is made from it's made from like the the chin hair of like a belly goat, baby goat that's been plucked by a Tibetan Sherpa who literally is forced to use lotion and camphor to keep their hands.

Soft so that they don't disturb the innate properties of the thread. It's amazing and available right now two for one at Kmart 1495. I mean, I'm just going based on the aesthetics of the look. David Friedberg is back the queen of kin wa recently having his office hit by a skunk.

Are you okay, David? Are you gonna be okay for the show? Be all right, just getting getting used to the condition. But you're on. You're on bandage. Really? Did you get hit by the skunk or just your office got hit by the skunk? Well, my windows were open. Apparently it's baby skunk season here in Northern California.

So there were some baby skunks playing around. Gosh, are you sure it's not your returns? Do soon. Way too soon. And let's move on. From definitely too soon. And from a nondescript motel eight somewhere in Texas, in Texas, Texas. David Sachs, a coastal elite in Texas. On mute. You're on mute, David.

Where this is episode 48. You can Yeah, I happen to be in Texas. That's correct. I it happens to be a tax free state. No coincidence. happens to be a state where you can carry a gun now. Yeah, exactly. And women are no longer in Texas. Are no longer allowed to make decisions for their own body.

So two out of three ain't bad. What a great place to live. Ridiculous. David, are you considering moving to the great state of Texas? Um, well, I'm open to the possibility. Let's just say I'm open to it. You're open to it. But I you know, I recently ran a Twitter survey where I asked Miami or Austin and Miami won by about 52%.

Austin got about 48%. With over 10,000 votes. So it's pretty interesting. And do you have a preference yourself between the two? I personally like Miami. I already have a place in Miami, but I'm checking out Austin to serve. Yeah, just for how close are you to 11? due diligence, just for complete due diligence.

So I think at this point, we should just go through the cities that sex doesn't have a home. Can we just that might be easier for us to narrow down possible location. All right, listen, people started haranguing us on the Twitter to have some bestie guesties on the program.

And so we decided we were bringing Balaji Srini vasan Balaji Srini vasan. Did I get it correct? I mean, I've been pronouncing your name wrong for five years. I mean, you're such a fucking ignoramus race. You are such a fucking racist. Listen, Greek names are hard to pronounce. I mean, it's fine.

It's fine. Balaji, Balaji, Balaji, Balaji, Balaji, Balaji, Balaji, Balaji, Srinivasan, Munit, Munit, Srinivasan. Balaji, you've you've listed to just figured out how to say polyhapitia. So I have been training the world how to say polyhapitia for years. Sri Lankan names are the only names that are harder than South Asian names or South Indian.

Although Tamil names are pretty brutal. I mean, yeah, Tamil names. Yeah. Basically, you guys add like maybe one or two more syllables. So I actually have to strain. And ours end in a vowel. The Tamils always end in a consonant which always just then you can just they take liberal license to go on for another 20 minutes.

Can you guys just drop a few syllables from your names? We could. We could. Yeah. But we don't. It's an intimidation thing. Chimak Paul. Bal Sri. No, Matt Polly. All right, there's a big tech backlash. And it's not a big tech backlash. And it's not just because of David Sachs comments.

A new poll shows that 80% of registered voters. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait, before we go there. I have a question for Balaji. You are, in my opinion, but I think a lot of people would say, one of the most incredibly well read thoughtful, you know, commentators that we have, frankly, like, you know, not just in tech, but I just think generally, in our society, I would give you that I think you're incredible.

I'm curious, how did you become such a polymath? Was this just one of these things where you've always been curious about everything? Like, just tell us about I'm curious about like, how you grew up, first of all, and then second, how do you spend a normal day? I just want to know those.

And then then we can just jump in. I'm just curious, because I sure do extremely well read and extremely knowledgeable. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. You know, I try to learn from from everybody. What do I do? I think normal people go to the club or they, they go out and have fun.

And I read math books and history books and science books and stuff like that. That's how I have fun. I find that more interesting. Nothing wrong with with going out people do that I go for walks and stuff, I work out. But so I do a lot of that.

And I have, I mean, other than that, I just, I just read a lot. And I think I remember a moderate amount. And so I cite that. And it's nothing really much more complicated than that. But that's it. I think we call that a polymath. The Tia. The only difference would be you, if he could stop going to the club.

And he lost that last 40%. I will make an observation, which I was actually talking to sacks about this, which is, there's some people who are great at business. And learn the tech because that part is necessary to put it together. And there's some people who are fundamentally like scientists or academics, and then get into business in order to advance technology.

And there's nothing wrong with the first group. And I think that's totally, you know, fine and legitimate, like business people first, and then they get tech. I'm really part of the second group, I think, where, you know, I'm fundamentally an academic at heart, you know, I spent almost the first three decades of my life meditating on mathematics.

And just kind of got into tech relatively later in life than than many others. All right. And you spent your career building companies, everybody remembers, earn.com. By the way, that's actually doing extremely well at Coinbase. Coinbase earn is on track for 100 million revenue. Actually, it's much more than that in terms of GMB is broken out separately in there.

Not their s1, but their quarterly filing. So you can go and check me on that. And the other assets that we added after I joined Coinbase are more than 50% of Coinbase revenue, again, in their filings, and Coinbase custody in all of its assets come from Rosetta, which is something that we did there.

And we launched USDC when I was there. And that is whatever $100 million a day. So they got a lot of value out of that acquisition. Just the CTO for a while of Coinbase. Obviously, what was your take on Coinbase is lend product, the SEC coming in and saying, Hey, pump the brakes, we want a bunch of information.

And then they've just Brian Armstrong and Coinbase announced that they're not going to do the lend product. What's your take on that? So I don't speak for Coinbase anymore. Okay, I'm, you know, in my personal capacity. But I do think that this is sort of the beginning of an era where we're going to be rolling back the alphabet soup that FDR put in place.

That is to say, you know, the SEC is not set up to go after millions of crypto holders and developers are set up to go after a Goldman and a Morgan, you know, just like the FAA is not set up to go after millions of drone developers, just have to go after Boeing and Airbus.

And the FDA is not set up to go after millions of biohackers are set up to go after, you know, Pfizer and Merck. So the entire 20th century alphabet soup that regulatory apparatus is meeting something that it's not really set up for. And it's going to be it's the problem is not the problem is not, any one actor like Coinbase or Kraken or what have you, their problem is that technology has shifted.

And they've got many more people to deal with. And maybe those are individuals who are more risk tolerant than companies. So, so I don't think they're going to be able to maintain the the status quo of 100 years ago, the statutes that they're citing, I think that's going to either get knocked down in court are going to be technologically invalidated, there's going to be sanctuary cities and states for crypto, or there's going to be international entities, like what El Salvador is doing in Switzerland.

So I don't believe that that era, is going to maintain, but I think there's going to be a big conflict over it. So we'll see. How do you think it's different this time though, Bology to the like, crackdown because folks said the same thing, going into kind of the Napster era, when you know, everything was basically peer to peer sharing of media files that were technically copyright.

And there was, you know, some regulatory regime that you know, had oversight over that copyright. But then the DOJ got wrangled in and they went in and they made an example out of arresting a couple 100 kids, I think, and it basically caused everyone to back away entirely from the market, similar to kind of what we may be seeing happening in China right now.

But is it not possible that we see a similar sort of response this time around where they kind of take this targeted make an example approach to kind of share people to scare people kind of out of the frenzy that's, that's, I think, driving a lot of people onto these platforms rather than going after the platforms themselves.

So kind of saying, look, this is this is a violation of security laws, you guys are getting prosecuted. Here's the 100 examples, and suddenly 80% of the attention kind of gets vacuumed out. Yeah, so I'd say a few things about that first is, I think 2021 is different from the year 2000, in the sense that China is an absolutely ruthless and very competent state.

Whereas the US government I would consider, you know, it's a difference between lawful evil and chaotic evil. You guys know that from Dungeons and Dragons? Okay, so Chinese government is lawful evil. They are very organized. And they plan ahead. And when they push a button, they just execute, like, like this whole society, and they don't leave, you know, round corners or things left out.

The US government is today in 2021, not the 1950 US government, the 2020 US government is like this shambolic, chaotic mess that can't really do anything, and is optimized for PR and yelling online. And that's a whole important topic. But to your so that's one thing where I think there's a difference in just state capacity.

But in that's not to say that they're not going to try with what they've got. The other thing is that, so to your Napster point, there was thesis and antithesis, but there was synthesis, that's to say, you know, Napster led to Kazaa and LimeWire. And actually, the Kazaa guys went into Skype.

So something legit came out of that. But the more important word more on point thing is, it led to Spotify. And that's a whole different topic. And that's led to Spotify and iTunes. The record companies were forced to the negotiating table. There was a there was a waypoint there that's important, which is that when that happened in Napster, we, we ran a company called Winamp, and it was part of AOL.

The biggest architectural flaw of Napster was that Salama's ass and and well, the biggest problem with Napster was that it was it was not fundamentally peer to peer. And so there were these servers. And so, you know, the simple software architecture decision that somebody had to make was okay, well, let's just make a entirely headless product that basically is fundamentally peer to peer.

And that's what the Nutella source code was, we actually released that on AOL servers, without them knowing, it took them a few hours to figure this out. They called us, we shut the whole thing down. But in those few hours, it was downloaded about five or 6000 times all this open source code that we put out.

That was the basis of LimeWire, bear share. And that is what basically just decapitated the music industry. And it was there that then the music industry realized we needed a contractual framework to operate with these folks, because they'll just keep inventing technology that makes this impossible. And then that's what sort of that's what iTunes was able to do with a 99 cent store.

That's what Spotify was able to do after that. But a lot of it started was because of what biology said earlier, which is a technologically, people just will continue to push the boundaries. And we did that in music. And I think that's a lot of why, the industry looks the way it does today.

But ultimately, the premise kind of resolved back to centralized systems, right? I mean, like, think about, you know, the Napster concept, it was really supposed to be true peer to peer file sharing, and it ended up becoming the iTunes store where everything sat on Apple servers. And they ultimately served everything out.

That's the reflexivity, because like, what happens is all of these folks, you know, you're sitting at Warner Brothers, or Warner Music, or Universal Music Group, you're seeing an entire industry that was worth probably 20 or 30 million dollars. And then you're like, well, I'm gonna go to Apple, or $30 billion, just getting completely decimated.

Then there's this psychological thing that happens where first, you want to shut everything down, but then because there's this other thing that is even more evil and even worse and uncontrollable than the thing that you hated, then you actually say, "Well, listen. My enemy's enemy is my friend." Then you say, "Well, fine.

Let's find a few partners to work with and we can try to find a way of living with these technologies." That's going to repeat to your point, Balaji, crypto is probably now where we're going to see it play out first because that's probably the most important intersection of individuals' desire and a regulatory framework that's outdated where the SEC has some extremely complicated questions it needs to answer, especially even after something today.

If you're sitting inside the SEC and all of a sudden you see that China, an entire country that basically was where an enormous amount of this crypto activity started and originated and was happening, can completely change the way that you think about it. I think that's a really important thing to think about.

I think that's a really important thing to think about. I think that's a really important thing to think about. I think that's a really important thing to think about. I think that's a really important thing to think about. I think that's a really important thing to think about. I think that's a really important thing to think about.

I think that's a really important thing to think about. happening can completely turn something off. What is our position as a government and as a society? We don't know. Well, let me just fill everybody in for a second who don't know what happens. On the taping today, September 24th, Chinese government has announced that doing any transactions in cryptocurrency is now illegal.

Holding it, apparently you can still hold it and this comes after Bitcoin servers being kicked out of the country. Yes, they've pushed the button. Go ahead, Balaji. To Friedberg, I would say, BitTorrent is what kept the record industry honest and that forced them to the table of iTunes, to Chamath's point also.

I wouldn't call it more evil, I'd call it more good. BitTorrent also lurks out there as this peer-to-peer enforcer that- Like a check. It's a check, exactly. It's not gone. In fact, it's a basis for new technologies and I think this is another flare-up. The other thing is that with crypto, the upside, even though the state wants to crack down on it harder, the upside is also greater and the global internet is bigger.

I think the rest of world, meaning all the world besides the US and China, is a huge player in what is to come. That's India, but it's also Brazil, it's every other country that's not the US or China. That's a new player on the stage. Third, to Chamath, to your point about yes, China banned crypto, it can do this to it.

Well, what's interesting is people talk about China copying the US. Nowadays, actually in many ways, especially on a policy front, the US is copying China without admitting it, but it does so poorly. For example, lockdown. The Chinese lockdown was something where it wasn't just sit in your rooms. It was something with drones with thermometers and central quarantine where people were taken from their families and centrally quarantined and a thousand ultra intrusive measures that the population by and large complied with.

Forget about a vaccine mandate. We're talking about, you can see all the videos and stuff from out of China. The government itself is published. Yeah, they didn't see much. Yeah, they didn't seem real at first. They were pretty crazy. They didn't seem real at first, right. The thing is that for the US to follow that, it's a little bit like as a mental image, imagine a lithe Chinese gymnast going and doing this whole gymnastics routine and then a big lumpy American following and not being able to do those same moves.

The Chinese government is, as I said, lawful evil, but they are set up to just snap this, snap that, do this, do that. The US government is absolutely not and the US people are not. Whatever you do- Well, I mean, we also, our system is a democracy, is it not?

You cannot just do that. Even if the government wanted to weld people into their homes, we have a democratic state here where we have to discuss these things and there's a legal framework to it, so it's not even possible. Yes, but even in the 1950s, the 1940s, 1930s, the US was still a democracy, but it basically managed to exert a very strong top-down control on things.

Today, we have something for where, like under FDR or in the 50s, a very conformist society, which was able to drive things through. Even though it's a democracy, it was something where mass media was so centralized that a relatively small group of people could get consensus among themselves and then what they printed in the headlines, I mean, who's going to go and figure out the facts on their own?

This gets into the media topic later. It was de facto centralized at the media level, the information production and dissemination level, and then you manufactured consent from there. Today, it's you're combining that democratic aspect, the legal aspect with a new information dissemination thing, which is decentralized, I think, a lot of things.

Sachs, what's your take? Yeah, well, I'd love to get Balji's take on an article that came out this week in the Wall Street Journal. I think it was a really important article, came about four days ago, and it was entitled, "Xi Jinping Aims to Reign in Chinese Capitalism and Hu to Mao's Socialist Vision." And the article describes how, we've all seen and talked about on this pod, how they've been cracking down on tech giants, they've been cutting down their tech oligarchs, down to size, like Jack Ma, how he disappeared under house arrest.

And we've seen that they stopped the anti-IPO. But this article went beyond those steps and really talked about Xi's ideological vision. And what it basically says is that what's going on here isn't just the CCP consolidating power. They actually want to bring the country back to socialism. And what they say is that within the CCP or at least Xi's view of it, capitalism was just something they did as an interim measure to catch up to the West.

But ultimately, they are very serious about socialism. And reading this article, I had to wonder, well, gee, did we just catch a lucky break here in the sense that, look, they're abandoning or if they abandon the thing they copied from us, which is market-based capitalism, they use that to catch up.

Maybe this is the way that actually this is the thing that slows them down. And I think that's the thing that historically that it brought to mind is that if you go back into the 1500s and you compare Europe to China, the Chinese civilization was way ahead. I mean, the standard of living was way ahead.

Technologically, it was way ahead. Europe was a bunch of squalid, warring tribal nation states. And then what happened is a single Chinese emperor banned the shipbuilding industry. Any ship with more than two masts was banned. And so exploration just stopped in China. They became very inward facing. Whereas the European states explored and discovered and conquered the new world, colonized the world, and that led to an explosion of wealth and innovation.

And as a result, Western Europe and then its sort of descendant, the United States, ended up essentially conquering and dominating the modern world. And so I guess, to bring it back to my question to Bology, is there a chance that what Xi is doing, returning to socialism, could this be like the Chinese emperor who banned shipbuilding?

Or am I reading way too much into the single Wall Street Journal story? So, my short answer on that is I think it is, I think the socialist thing is real, but I think it's better to call it nationalist socialism with the implications that has. Whereas I think the US is kind of going in the direction of what I call maybe socialist nationalism.

You know, where it's like different emphases in terms of what is prioritized, but you know, and I think in many ways, China is like the new Nazi Germany, woke America is like the new Soviet Russia, and the decentralized center is going to be the new America, I can elaborate on that.

But basically, with respect to this, one thing I try to do is I try to triangulate lots of stories. So rather than, for example, and nothing wrong with the Wall Street Journal, you know, the piece like looking at it, but for every W shaped piece you read, it's useful to get like, you know, what is CGTN or Global Times saying, even if you discounted just to see what they're saying.

And then you also triangulate with, let's say, the Indian or Russian point of view. And by doing this, you I feel that it's better than just reading 10 American articles. And, you know, especially reading primary sources, like there's this good site called reading the Chinese dream, which actually translates primary sources, and then you can kind of form your opinion, you know, your opinions from that versus like, like a quote, hot take, right?

I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying that that's what I tried to do. So I think we've really gotten China right here. I mean, I think that if you if you look at what's happening, I think we've we've basically forecasted this orchestration of essentially the re vertical integration of China.

You know, we have China Inc, where the CEO is Xi Jinping. And where there is a, it's, it's, it's almost like they've, they've changed the game, where what they are playing essentially is like, settlers of Catan or something where the goal is just to hoard resources. And I think that they have enough critical resources for the world.

And the clever part of what they did was the last 20 or 30 years, they leveraged the world to essentially finance their ability to then have a stranglehold on these critical resources, whether it's ships, or whether it's rare earths or other materials, they leveled up. And I think that was the genius.

Yeah, well, they leveled up, they leveled up on our capital. Yeah. And now that all that infrastructure is there, and now that we are addicted to the drug, they can then change the rules. They leveled up with our operating system. It was a brilliant move. But they allowed entrepreneurs to believe that they could be entrepreneurs, they allowed an entire society to basically level up.

Why did nobody see this coming Chamath? Nobody saw this coming. People were starting venture firms, look what they were doing, taking companies public. They did Belt and Road while we did nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. Right? I mean, what is Belt and Road? Belt and Road is a country that is built on the land of the people of the people.

And they're building a highway. They're building a highway. They're building a highway. They're building a highway. They're building a highway. They're building a highway. They're building a highway. They're building a highway. They're building a highway. They're building a highway. They're building a highway. They're building a highway. They're building a highway.

And they're building a highway. They're building a highway. They're building a highway. Superhighways to extract the resources that Chamath is talking about, and bringing them into the Chinese system. And what did we spend our trillions on nation building in Afghanistan? I mean, why didn't we see this coming? Everybody was looking at China starting venture firms there.

You know, embracing it taking companies public Wall Street politicians, nobody saw this coming. So the rising tiger story has been around since the late 90s. Right? No, no, I'm talking about why didn't we see them cutting the heads off? The answer entrepreneurship spent because it was not about white people.

China was in Sri Lanka. China was in Africa. These are not sexy, interesting places. Western audiences, they could you guys couldn't give a fuck. Let's just be honest. Okay. And so that's why it didn't matter. Because you we thought we all thought that these are countries that are sort of, you know, squalid third world.

Developing nation states that don't really matter. They don't necessarily have the resources that matter. But what did China do they realized that those folks are the future GDP, those folks are the future population pools, the young that can actually do the hard work, and then they went and they secured again.

So not only resources now, so that's one thing, hold on. So that's one thing. I think we entirely missed it. Because as David said, the military industrial complex doesn't look at, you know, a development, a developing nation and say, we want to be there. It looks at Afghanistan and says we want to dominate it, because we can actually feed off of that domination.

So that's one thing. The second thing is that I think that we misunderstood Xi Jinping's ambition. And I think that that's a reasonable mistake to have made. The first one is an error of just complete stupidity. The second one is something that I think it was legitimate to have missed.

And to your point, Chamath, they not only stole the entrepreneurial playbook, but the colonizing other places and the economic development of the country. And so I think that's a really good point. And I think that's a really good point. And I think that's a really good point. We all thought it was dumb.

Let's all be honest, you know, 10 years ago, I disagree. No, I would argue in a lot of cases we benefited. So China set up and bought like the largest pork production company in Australia. And what do you feed those pigs, you feed them soybeans, and where do those soybeans come from?

Largest soybean exporting market is the United States. You know, we had a tremendous customer in China, as they expanded their consumption pattern through all of this investing they were doing worldwide. We were exporting John Deere equipment and Caterpillar construction equipment and soybean products and our knowledge industry and there was a tremendous service model.

And globalization really created, call it a catch-22 for the United States, where we were watching the rising tiger fueled in part by this distributed entrepreneurism. But as that distributed entrepreneurism creates, you know, obviously the social... Do you think there is an equal amount of dollars that went into Western developed nations from China as it went into third world countries?

No, but it's hard to... Most Western nations couldn't give a shit about... Yeah, but that money is too hard to turn down. There's a mistake in our thinking with respect to the rest of the world that we've been making, we make over and over again. And it was all kind of predicted by a historian named Samuel Huntington at Harvard in the 1990s.

He wrote a book called Class of Civilizations. This book was written at the same time. Then another famous book came out called The End of History and The Last Man. And what the common belief was in the 1990s in the US was that we had reached the end of history where every country would become democratic and capitalist, right?

That was the end of history is democratic capitalism. And we believe that the more we went all over the world spreading our ideals, it would hasten this day where they'd all become democratic capitalists. What Huntington said is no, you know, cultures and civilizations, these go back thousands of years, these are stubborn things.

And what these other... What these other cultures really want is not westernization, but modernization. And what they're going to do is they're going to modernize, they're going to learn from us as much as they can about technology, they're going to assimilate and adapt and take all of our technology, but they are not going to become like us, they're not going to westernize.

And that is basically what's happened over the last 25 years. And so the Chinese have caught up to us. And suddenly we realize, whoa, wait a second, they have not westernized. They are still their own unique civilization. Correct. They... They have basically the equivalent of a modern day emperor.

And they have no interest in westernizing. And we're like, what have we done? Because now we've allowed them to catch up from a technological standpoint. Balaji, why do we... Why did everybody in the West get this so wrong? Well, so a few things. One is political differences aren't public in China, but they are real.

So it's all the backroom stuff. And there was a real leadership shift from Deng and Zhang, and Hu to Xi. You know, the Mao era was revolutionary communist. The Deng, Zhang, Hu era was internationalist capitalist. I think that was real. And the Xi era is nationalist socialist. And it's just different.

Like, Hu did not fully control the military the way that Xi does. There's this ad you guys should watch, the Chinese military ad. It's called like, "We will all be here," or something like that. And the thing about it, it's not just that it's like extremely well coordinated military program.

It's not just that it's like a military parade and set to be intimidating and so on. It's that the whole thing clearly just falls up to one guy, Xi. It's not him riding in a car with the rest of the communist party, flanking him as an oligarchy. It's just like one guy, this 2 million person army folds up to him.

That is a true consolidation and roll up of power that he was able to accomplish among other things with tigers and flies, going and throwing Bo Xili in prison, you know, having generals, you know, thrown in prison for whether they were actually corrupt or whether they simply, were political rivals.

Yeah, it's hard to know from the outside, you know, in one sense, because so many folks in the Chinese government were taking bribes as almost like an equity stake in their province, you know, like coming up, they're like, "Hey, you know, hey, Gru, so, you know, give me a cut." A lot of people were vulnerable.

So, he just consults. So, it's not something, you know, people will say, "Oh, you know, the Chinese plan for 100 years." They don't plan for 100 years. They had this huge war in the 20th century between the nationalists and communists, the Deng transition, you know, his triumph for the Gang of Four.

That was not something Mao had planned. They're human beings like everybody else. And they had a real leadership transition after three hours of continuity. Then this is what I think, this is the key point you're making, which is, I think the reason that this actually flipped and we didn't see it coming is because Xi Jinping decided, "I want to have complete control over the country.

These other people are getting too powerful." And we're actually reading into this that there's some crazy plan. It just could be a crazy man, not a crazy plan. I really disagree with you. Why? Explain. I mean, he just decided, he just decided to basically take away every entrepreneur's company.

They were not trying to do, they were doing all of this stuff in plain sight. Okay. As an example, you know, we view Sierra Leone as a place where we make commercials about, or we try to fundraise for, or we send USAID. They view Sierra Leone as a place where there's critical resources that are dependent on that, that the future of the world depends on.

And so they will go, they will modernize, they will invest, and they will then own those critical resources. View, we view Chile as a, as a random country in South America that abuts, you know, Peru and Argentina. They view Chile as a place where you, where there is the largest sources of lithium that we need for battery production in the future.

They were doing this for decades right in front of us. And the reason we, and the reason we- The cutting of capitalism off though is the question. Hold on a second. The reason, the reason we didn't pay attention is because none of those countries mean anything to us. Okay.

So I agree with Chamath. And the thing is though, I'd argue that the blindness actually comes from both ends of the political spectrum. Like on the, on the conservative end, oh, these are shithole countries basically, you know, you can bleep that if you want, but you know, Not Trump said it.

Yeah. You know, it's something where, for example, COVID was only taken seriously once it was hitting Italy and France. Like China was still considered like a third world country, but it actually also comes from the liberal side in a different, like it's a slightly masked, but it's a condescension of not the military industrial complex, but the nonprofit NGO, you know, complex like, oh, the white savior with the NGOs.

You know, coming in and, you know, you know, pat them on the head kind of thing. They're not a, not a big deal. And the thing about this is like the one thing I think is a huge thing for our diplomatic core today is making any generalization about another culture, which says that they're not completely good or that they have some aspect to them that doesn't match exactly to the US.

You can be called a racist for doing that. And so this is kind of, I mean, look at the criticism of Islam. I mean, if you criticize Saudi Arabia for throwing gay people off of buildings, you're not respecting their religion. Can I just say that Balaji just gave the most precise delineation that I've had.

So let me just repackage what you said, because it resonated with me. Western philosophy tends to view countries in three buckets. Bucket number one are countries like us, right? Those are the other Western countries, the G8 countries. They feel like we're aligned. And then what happens is you get this weird thing where then you move into like countries where you basically either deal with it with wokeism.

Right? Oh, let me go pat them on the head. Let me go try to save them because it makes me feel better. Or you deal with them as neocons, where it's just like, let me go dominate them and take them to war. And literally, you can take all 180 odd countries in the world and effectively sort them into those three things.

And that, I think, is the problem with America's view of what we're doing. And so what David said is really true, which is that while we were doing this, we had neocon war, wokeism, or you're our buddy because you're like us. Right? The entire world reordered itself with completely different incentives, and they did it right in front of us.

And now we wake up to realize, oh my gosh, that was an enormous miscalculation that we just did. Yeah. So, you know, if you look at kind of the history of the West's interaction with the rest of the world, and let's talk about colonialism, and whether you're talking about colonialism over the last few hundred years, or even you talk about a microcosm like Afghanistan over the last 20 years, I would argue that there's three phases to the West's interaction with these other countries.

Right? Phase one is sort of domination, right? Like Jamath was saying. Phase two is assimilation, where the culture that's been dominated realizes that they're behind and they want to catch up. And so there's a process of Americanization, Romanization. And what they're doing is they are learning from us and taking our technology, and it lulls us into a false sense of security that we think they're becoming Americanized or becoming Westernized.

It's alignment, right? It's not alignment. It's just they're trying to catch up. Then the third phase is reassertion, where the dominated country, culture, you know, what have you, reasserts its traditional culture and its traditional views because they've modernized, but without becoming truly becoming Americanized or Westernized. And we are caught off guard by that.

And we don't really realize that they never really wanted our culture. They just wanted to throw off, you know, American domination or Western domination. And so what they've actually done is use this period to basically assimilate and catch up. And the reality is, like in Afghanistan, they don't have to fully assimilate all of our technology.

They don't have to become as strong as us because we are in their land. They just have to become strong enough to basically achieve a sense of... They just kind of upgrade their systems, right? They just have to achieve a defensive superiority. It's not an offensive capability. So it's much easier for them to catch up than we think.

And we are always caught off guard by this dynamic, and it repeats itself over and over again. And what you've seen in China is, you know, 30, 40 years ago, you had the great economic reformer, Deng Xiaoping. He laid out what they had to do. He said, "Abide your time and hide your strength.

Hide your strength under a bushel." That was the great motto by Deng Xiaoping. He set that policy for 30 or 40 years. They embraced basically perestroika without glasnost. They reformed their economic policy. They reformed their economic system. They copied us, but not making Gorbachev's mistake of giving up any political control whatsoever.

And by 2012, they had largely caught up. And so I would say that Xi was not an aberration. He was a reassertion. They had gotten to a point of strength where they were ready for that strong leader who was ready to reassert their... Basically, their ethno-nationalism. And that's the point we're at right now.

And once again, we've been played for fools and caught off guard. Friedberg... I think one of the signs was his corruption crackdown a few years ago, right? I mean, that was kind of step one where he took all these provincial managers and kicked them out and put them in jail and started to clean things up internally, where there was clearly kind of corrupt behavior underway.

But I'm a couple points back. I do think it's worth highlighting that to some degree, you can kind of try and diagnose his motivation or diagnose the motivation as being rather not too surprising and maybe not too surprising. too nefarious in the power grabbing sense, which I think we all kind of want to bucket it as.

But if there's a population like we're seeing in the United States, where when you loosen the screws on liberalism, and you allow for more freedom to operate and more kind of free market behaviour, you see tremendous progress. And as I think we've talked about in the past, tremendous progress always yields a distribution of outcomes amongst the population, but everyone moves forward.

Some people just move forward 10 times faster and farther. And it causes populist unrest. And we've seen it in the United States. I mean, if AOC, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders were elected to kind of be the triumvirate that ran the United States today, they would probably say, "Let's end all this capitalism that's creating all this wealth in the United States." And progress generally would slow down.

And I think that there's been inklings of that. Clearly, there's data to support the inklings of this in China, that indicates, you know what, the loosening of the screws has allowed tremendous progress, but it's time to tighten the screws. Because populism and unrest is going to arise from kind of perceived inequality, just like we're seeing in the United States.

And, you know, I guarantee or I can't guarantee, but I would assume that if, you know, certain populist leaders in the United States have the same level of authority, that Chinese leaders do, they would probably act in the same way. I think what we're going to see next is, and I think we should talk about what we think will happen next with China.

I think China is on the brink of having a revolution. If you look at what happened to the Uyghurs, obviously, you can't practice religion there. Students in Hong Kong can't protest, you can't publish what you want. Founders can't start companies. Now you're not going to be able to play video games as much as you want.

You can't use social media. And today, you can't have any control over your finance. If you squeeze people across this many vectors, this hard, this quickly, I think Freiburg's right, it could result in massive... China is not like a uniform people and a uniform culture. Of course, yeah. But I mean, I'm just listed like seven or eight things they're doing to squeeze...

But there are many provinces, many cultures, many differences, many differences of experience, by the way. I mean, you know, the rural population in China doesn't experience much of what I think is driving industry and driving this inequality and perceived inequality and the changes that are underway. I don't think that a revolution is generally supported unless you have, you know, enough kind of concentrated swell across the population.

I don't know how you could see something like that happening in as diverse a population as China. I support China's limits on social media use by children. I could use that here for my kids. Clearly, Sachs is letting his kids use whatever they want. I mean, we definitely need to have some of those over here.

Balaji, what do you think is going to happen? Worst case, best case for China in the next two decades? Well, so one thought I want to give is basically that in some ways, this is inevitable because China and India are 35% of the world. Asia was the center of the world.

And one way of thinking about it is that America and the West executed extremely well over the last couple of centuries and Asia didn't with socialism and communism. And now that they've actually got a better OS, it's not like the US really could restrain them, you know? So in that sense, that's also part of their internal narrative in a way.

I mean, of course, Mao killed millions of people there. They screwed up their own stuff. But their narrative is they were colonized by the West and the opium wars are patronized as copycats emasculated on film. For decades, they're like heads down in sweatshops. They built plastic stuff. They took orders from all these overseas guys and announced their time to stand up and take back their rightful position in the world.

And that's their narrative. And so it's important to not agree with it, but at least understand where it's coming from because they want it more, I think. And so I disagree, Jason, with your view that they're going to have a revolution. I think that's like, that's the kind of, that's a Western mindset where, you know, Australia, for example, is having these COVID protests.

In China, the harder the crackdown, the less more crackdown, like the easier it makes the next crackdown. It's like, it's something where the difference- It's not going to be an easy revolution, that's for sure. But we saw protests, you saw Tiananmen Square, you saw Hong Kong, and you're going to see Taiwan.

Well, you've not seen anything since. That was 30 years ago. It's still proof positive that if you squeeze people, they will take to the streets. Jason, the quality of life in China has accelerated at such a pace over the past 30 years. The average person in China is so much better off than they were five years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago.

Revolutions don't come out of that amount of progress, right? When you go from $4,000 a year in average income to $20,000 a year in average income- What happens if they don't have jobs in the recession? The only time you revolt is because of economics. That's what I just said.

So what happens if there is- They're growing at 8% a year. The GDP is growing 8% a year. The population is seeing an incredible benefit and the cost is- What if that reverses? Would you see a revolution then? Well, J. Cal, I mean, look, I think we- To Balji's point about this is like a Western mindset, I mean, think about the Arab Spring.

We saw all those revolutions with the Arab Spring, and we thought, "Oh, look, they're finally throwing off the yoke of oppression, and now they're going to set up democratic states." And what did we actually get? We actually got religious fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism, right? We didn't get what we thought.

And I think this happens over and over again is that we're trying to superimpose our mindset on them. We're thinking like, frankly, a Davos man. Yeah. No, I'm thinking like- People want security, by the way. And security can come in a lot of different forms. And religious fundamentalism is one of them.

And the way that we see government operate in China may seem foreign and uncomfortable to us, but it provides enough security to people to know they're going to have to be able to do what they want to do, which is to protect themselves, to protect their family, to protect their friends, to protect their family, to protect their family, to protect their family, to protect their family, to protect their family, to protect their family, to protect their family, and to protect their family.

And so, I think that's a really important thing. And I think that's a really important thing. And I think that's a really important thing. And I think that's a really important thing. And I think that's a really important thing. You know, it's not necessarily an equation that says all humans that don't live like Americans are going to be unhappy.

Yeah. Last thing I'll just say is basically I think the idea that China will collapse from internal revolution or the US military is like really strong relative to China, I think are both actually forms of wishful thinking. With that said, I do believe that we need a strategy for China on a global scale.

I think the future is a centralized East and decentralized West. But I don't think it's going to be just, hey, deus ex machina is going to solve this problem. No, I don't think the revolution is going to necessarily overturn China. I think you're going to see revolutionary moments. Well, so just to say one thing in your defense, J.

Cal, because everyone's kind of beating up on you is I- I didn't mean it as beating up, by the way, just- No, no, no, I know. Zach is defending J. Cal? What's going on? No, no, no, I want to- Yeah. I'm not saying it's a guarantee of revolution. But I think this is going to be- there's going to be some social unrest.

Yeah, well, look, the one way in which I agree with J. Cal is I do think that freedom ultimately is the birthright of every human, regardless of where you're born, you know, who you are, what culture you are. But I think the thing that the United States has learned over the last 20 years is the road from here to there is going to be much more complicated than we think.

And longer. And longer. And cultures are very stubborn things, and they're not going away anytime soon. And the transition is going to have to happen within those cultures. It's not something that we can superimpose. By the way, I would also point out freedom is the birthright and the want of a people that at some point have enough security to feel like they have that luxury.

Up until that point, I think that you have to make the decision of does security give me more than freedom? And in a lot of cases, security coming with all the costs it comes with may give people more than absolute freedom. And that's a transitionary phase. And I think that's a transitionary phase.

I think, you know, a lot of people's go through, people's being civilizations and states and whatnot. Anybody have a prediction of what's going to happen in the next 20 years, or we'll move on to the next? I just can't believe Sachs was empathetic to your point, J. Cal. That was a great moment.

It's really insane. I have a few predictions. I think actually, if you read, you know, the Kill Chain or similar books, that's by I think Christian Brose. It's a good book, where basically he's like, you know, the US military has a perfect record in its war games with China.

China has won every round. And, you know, if you look at just the fact that with COVID, US military basically suffered a military defeat in the sense that it had this whole biodefense program, it's supposed to protect against biological weapons. That didn't work. Afghanistan, huge defeat, $2 trillion. You have this AUKUS thing where it looks like France is now pulling off and you know, from NATO or the EU is doing their own thing.

I think that China is, and then China is really already predominant in many ways in Asia. And the US just doesn't care about the area as much. I mean, who wants to start another gigantic war over this? Certainly, I don't think the people of America do after 20 years of forever war.

And China really cares about Taiwan. They really care about their backyard. So whether that's a war or whether that's a referendum on Taiwan or whether it's some unpredictable event like COVID, I don't know. But I do think that China does have some Monroe Doctrine-like thing that it gets to within Asia where basically it says, just like the US said, "Hey, we're running this hemisphere." They're saying, "Hey, we're running this sector of things." Whether that's a military conflict where the US decides to just withdraw, I don't know.

And then I think what has to happen is we have to figure out what the decentralized West looks like. An asymmetric response to China because it's going to basically be the number one centralized state in the world. You're not going to be able to combat it head on militarily.

It's got like 10x growth in front of it and it's already a monster. Unless there's some assassination or revolution or something crazy like that that's hard to predict, if it manages what it's got, it's like Google 2010. It's got 10 years of that in front of it. Whether it's a Chinese decade or a Chinese century, I think depends on whether we can build the technologies to defend freedom, meaning like encryption, meaning decentralized social networks, meaning these kinds of things because that's the only, I think, kinds of tools that are going to help us.

Whether it's drones, whether it's other kinds of things, asymmetric defense versus what they're going to be. It's not going to just be a deus ex machina. Look, I think that's a great point to end on, Jason, because there's other stuff we want to talk about. So, one of the things that, you know, Bology's commented on that I give him, you know, a tremendous amount of credit for is corporate, is the idea of corporate journalism.

In fact, Bology, you're the first person I heard that term from corporate journalism, which is a recognition that all of these reporters actually are employees of companies and they have a company culture and they often have, they have owners, the companies do. Those owners often have an agenda. There's often a dogma inside these corporations.

And it really got me to see journalism in a new light because these journalists portray themselves as the high priests of the truth who are there to speak truth to power. And actually, they're really just kind of the lowest paid functionaries on the corporate totem pole. And, you know, in contradistinction to what you've called citizen journalists, who are people who are writing what they see as the truth in blogs or, you know, formats like this, where they are not getting paid for it.

You know, we're doing it because we want to put forward what we know to be the truth. And actually, I'd love to hear you speak to that because I think this is like one of the most powerful ideas that I've heard you put forward. Sure. So, so much I can say about this.

The first thing I would do is I'd recommend a book that recently came out by Ashley Rinsberg called The Grey Lady Winked. And the reason it's very important and I put it up there frankly with the top five books I'd recommend, I know I've recommended other books, top five books I recommend, Grey Lady Winked.

It goes back through the archives. You know, The New York Times calls themselves the paper of record. They call themselves, you know, the first draft of history. They've literally run billboards calling themselves the truth. But it's just owned by some random family in New York. And, you know, this guy, Arthur Sulzberger, who inherited it from his father's father's father.

And so you have this like, random rich white guy in New York who literally tries to determine what is true for the entire world. His employees write something down. We're supposed to believe that this is true. And I simply just don't believe that that model is operative anymore because I think truth is mathematical truth.

It's cryptographic truth. It's truth that one can check for oneself rather than, you know, argument from authority. It's argument from cryptography. And one of things with Bitcoin with cryptocurrencies is given decentralized way of checking on that. Now, to the point about corporate media, it's they're literally corporations. These are publicly traded companies with financial statements and quarterly, you know, reports and goals and revenue targets.

And so once you, you know, kind of are on the inside of one of these operations, you realize that that hit piece or what have you is being graded in the spreadsheet for how many likes and RTs it gets on Twitter. And if it gets more, they're going to do more pieces like that, flood the zone with that.

And if it doesn't, then they're going to do less. And they're all conscious of this. You know, for example, Nicholas Kristof wrote an article, I think it's like, the articles no one reads, articles someone will read where he noticed that his Trump columns get something like 5x more views than his other columns.

It's like this huge ratio. And so at least some folks there are privy to their page views. So, and of course, they're looking at their Twitter likes and RTs even if they, those are not directly page views. They're certainly correlated with pages on the article. So, all these folks are literally employees of for-profit corporations that are trying to maximize their profits.

But we believe them when they mark themselves as the truth like the NYT, or as democracy itself, like the Washington Post, or fair and balanced like Fox. These people equate themselves with like truth, democracy, and fairness. They weren't exactly around at the founding, okay? They weren't part of the constitution in '77, '76, the post offices.

But these media corporations were started later on and have kind of glommed themselves on and declared themselves like part of the status quo. And so, you know, I think that's a really good way to understand that. And I think that's a really good way to understand that. And I think that's a really good way to understand that.

And I think that's a really good way to understand that. And I think that's a really good way to understand that. And they are not. And the last point, and I'll just give you guys the floor, but we didn't go and say, "Oh, Blackberry, do better. Blockbuster, do better.

Barnes & Noble, do better." We just replaced them, disrupted them with better technological versions. And so, the idea that, "Oh, you know, New York Times, do better." That's completely outmoded way of thinking about it. We need to disrupt, we need to replace, we need to build better things. We need to have things that have like on-chain fact-checking that have voices from overseas, that have voices that are actually experts in their own fields, that have voices that are not necessarily corrupted by these four-pronged modes.

Explain what you mean by on-chain fact-checking. Give an example. So, this is a very deep area. But fundamentally, the breakthrough of Bitcoin was that an Israeli and a Palestinian or a Democrat and a Republican or a Japanese person and a Chinese person all agree on who has what Bitcoin on the Bitcoin blockchain.

It is essentially a way of in a low-trust environment, but a high-computation environment, you can use computation to establish mutually agreed upon facts. And these facts are who owns what million or billion of the roughly trillion dollars on the Bitcoin blockchain. And that's the kind of thing that's, I mean, people will fight over a $10,000 shit.

When you can establish global truth over a byte, which says, "Do you have 20 or 5 or 10 BTC?" You can actually generalize that to establish global truth on any other financial instrument. And that's tokens, and that's loans and derivatives, and that's a huge part of the economy. And then you can generalize it further to establish other kinds of assertions.

And that gets a little bit further afield, but not just proof of work and proof of stake, but things like proof of location or proof of identity. There's various other facts you can put on there. So, you start actually accumulating what I think of as not the paper of record, but the ledger of record, a ledger of all these facts that some of them are written by so-called crypto oracle, some of them arise out of smart contracts, but this is what you refer to.

And as a today model of what that looks like, it's sort of like how when someone links a tweet to prove that something happened, people link an on-chain record to prove that something happened. Concrete example, do you guys remember when Vitalik Buterin made that large donation earlier this year?

Yes. Okay. So, you want to talk about that? Explain how it happened? I think that you basically tweeted out something that was essentially trying to raise money to secure necessary equipment and pharmaceutical supplies to India during a pretty bad COVID outbreak. And then I think you decided that you were going to donate some money and then Vitalik basically stepped up and actually gave quite a large sum.

I'm not exactly sure the exact number, Balaji. Yeah. So, it was an enormous amount in illiquid terms of this meme coin, these Shibu coins. But the thing is that everybody, when they want to prove that this has happened because it's so unbelievable, such a large amount of money, he was marked it on the order of a billion when he gave it.

Do you know how they proved it? They didn't link a tweet. They linked a block explorer, okay, like an on-chain record that showed that this debit and this credit had happened. And the big thing about this is, you know, we take for granted when you link a tweet, you're taking for granted that Twitter hasn't monkeyed with it.

But guess what? Twitter monkeys with a lot of tweets these days. A lot of people get disappeared. And so, it's not actually that good a record of what happened anymore. This is deleted. This guy got suspended. You know, like, even the Trump stuff, forget about, like, Trump himself, but that historical archive of what happened, you can't link it anymore.

It's link-rotted. Just from that, like, I know it's one of the thousand most important things about it, but it's an important thing. In the example of, say, Taiwan, and China believing Taiwan is part of the one China concept, and Taiwan believes it is a country, and everybody in the world has a different vote on that, how does the block chain clarify what is the fact about is China a country or is it a province?

Very good question. Doesn't have to. Well, what it does is it clarifies the facts about the metadata. Who asserted that it was a country, and who asserted that it was a province, and what time did they do so, and, you know, what money, how much BTC did they put behind that or what have you.

So, it doesn't give you everything, but it does start to give you unambiguous, like, proof of who and proof of when and proof of what, and then from that, at least, yeah. Yeah. I mean, like, the way I've kind of explained it to family members who've asked is, you know, the concept of a chain is difficult, I think, for people to - that aren't, you know, don't have a background in computer science to really grow up, because like, but everyone understands the concept of a database, you know, there's a bunch of data in there, except in this case, the data that makes up the database is what's being verified by everyone, and it's distributed, so everyone has a copy of it.

I want to know what you guys think about this week in the Facebook dumpster fire. Let's move to something splashy and - Can I just say one thing? There's a book, Friedberg, on what you just mentioned, which is called The Truth Machine by Casey and Vigna, and it gives a pop culture explanation of the ledger of record type concepts I just mentioned.

Which I don't think a lot of people grok at, Balaji, to your point, and I think, you know, we're skipping past it, but it's a really important point, which is historically, databases have sat on someone's servers, and whoever has those servers decides what data goes in the database and how they're edited and what's allowed to come out of the database.

So, in this notion, generally, a database with information in it can be held, and it can be held by lots of people who generally, as a group, kind of vote and decide what's going to go into it. And that's the power of decentralization and how it changes, you know, the information economy, which drives the world.

And it's going to have a lot of implications, right? Facebook's worst month ever continues. We talked last week about Facebook having an internal leak called the Facebook Papers. This is a continuous leak to not only the Wall Street Journal, but apparently members of Congress getting it and the leaker and the SEC and the SEC and the leaker apparently works in the safety group, according to a congressperson who has been getting it and they are going to uncloak themselves, and that they were leaking this out of frustration, that there is human trafficking, democracy issues, and obviously self harm in girls using Instagram and, you know, this research, but that's not all.

Facebook is admitting for the first time this week that Apple's privacy updates are hurting their ad business. And I think the story you're referring to is that two groups of Facebook shareholders are claiming that the company paid billions of extra dollars to the FTC to spare Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg from depositions and personal liability in the Cambridge Analytica saga.

From the political Politico article, quote, Zuckerberg, Sandberg and other Facebook directors agreed to authorize a multi billion dollar settlement with the FTC as an express quid pro quo to the FTC. To protect Zuckerberg from being named in the FTC's complaint, made subject to personal liability or even required to sit for a deposition.

According to the article, the initial penalty was 106 million, but the company agreed to pay 50 times more 5 billion to have Zuck and Sandberg spared from depositions liability. Here is the money, quote, the board has never provided, this is from the group of shareholders suing the board has never provided a serious check on Zuckerberg's unfettered authority instead, it has enabled him defended him and paid him paid billions of dollars for Facebook's corporate coffers to make his problems go away.

Chamath. I have one prediction. The Facebook whistleblower. You know, when you are a federal whistleblower, number one is you get legal protection. But number two, which people don't talk about much as you actually get a large share of the fines that are paid by the act of your whistleblowing.

You know, there's a couple of SEC claims that I think were settled last year, whistleblower got paid, I think like 115 odd million dollars or something and just an enormous amount of money and the SEC has done a fabulous job and, you know, using whistleblowers as a mechanism of getting after folks and, you know, I think the SEC said they've collected almost a billion dollars since this whistleblower program started that they paid out or something just an enormous amount.

And I had this interesting observation, which is this person leaked a bunch of stuff or whistle blue to the Senate to Congress to the SEC, there probably will be an enormous fine. This person may actually make billions of dollars, which will then make every other employee at Facebook really angry about why they didn't leak it first, because all like I guess all this stuff was sitting around and apparently now they've shut it down, right?

So that that entire data repository around this whole topic is no longer freely available for employees to prove. So what under a key tam thing? Well, I think it was more like, like, I guess, like, all of this data was sitting inside of some Facebook, in some way, or something like that.

But I think it was more like, like, I guess, like, like, internal server. I mean, I mean, what this this leaker makes money under like key tam. So the SEC will pay for information that results in a fine. And so they just recently announced that they paid out $114 million whistle player payment, that was the highest ever.

And that they, this whistleblowers extraordinary actions and high quality information proved crucial to successful enforcement actions. I don't think they announced all of these whistleblower payouts. They just pay them. So that's, that's, that's my one observation is I actually think this whistleblower may make billions of dollars. So more than any of us made at Facebook, which I think is hilarious.

But the second thing, which is more important is that there was an article in the Wall Street Journal about how sentiment amongst Americans have now really meaningfully changed. And I Jason, I don't know if you have those stats. But this is a plurality of Democrats and Republicans. Where it's like, 80% of anybody now basically says the government needs to check big tech.

The Wall Street Journal published an article yesterday highlighting a new poll conducted for the future of tech commission, it found that 80% of registered voters 83% damn 78% repubs agreed that the federal government quote, needs to do everything it can to curb influence of big tech companies that have grown too powerful, and now use our data to reach far into our lives findings are based on a survey of 2000 or so registered voters.

I think it's a really, really, really tough road that these guys will have to navigate these next few years. Can I can I offer some contrary views here? Yeah, please. So, um, you know, the whistleblower thing, you know, real whistleblowers, in my view, are like Snowden or Sanjay, who are, you know, basically overseas and, or in prison for for telling what the US government is doing.

And the difference is, I'd say, they're whistleblowing, if accepted and acted upon would reduce the power of the US government. Whereas these, you know, kind of awards and so on, I think they they do distort incentives. It's not like they're giving a billion dollars to Snowden for blowing the whistle on the NSA, the military industrial complex is not happy with that.

But this money is being given because government is currently mad at Facebook and wants to do something that is like a quasi nationalization of Facebook. Now, very similar to what happened in China, where basically all the tech CEOs, they just do it much more explicitly, they're just basically decapitate all them say, okay, you're going, you know, spending time with your family.

In the US, it's done in this sort of denied way, and so on. But the US government getting more control over Facebook is not a solution to Facebook's real problems. It's just going to mean backdoor surveillance of everything. Every single thing that was pushed back on every end to end encryption thing that they implemented.

Now, the Keystone cops in the US government, not they don't just surveil everything, then their database gets leaked, and it's all on the internet, just like what happened under the SolarWinds hack. So I'm not denying that there are, you know, like bad things about Facebook, I actually think on net, it's probably been more beneficial than many people say.

But I don't believe that the federal government is a solution to those problems. I think the solution looks more like decentralized social networking, where people have control over their own data, not simply the US government quasi nationalizing the thing. So, you know, people bring up this decentralized social network thing, and as if it is a better solution, I think you believe it's a better solution.

But I rarely hear anybody talk about well, if there's slander on a decentralized network, if there's child pornography, if your personal banking information or your, you know, you were personally hacked, and that information was put on a decentralized social network, that cannot be reversed and stopped because it's decentralized, correct?

It depends. You know, the thing is, it's basically about what does it depend? You just said that the blockchain couldn't be changed, and that all the facts were permanent. So why does it depend now? Well, for something like child porn, for example, it's actually being used for that you're not going to find lots of people who are running those nodes.

It is, it's something where edge cases are always used to attack something. There's a famous cartoon which says, how do you want this wrapped, and it's called control of the internet. And it's either protect children or stop terrorists, right? And so when we talk about an edge case, like that, I mean, the CSAM stuff, child porn, you know, that was that's used by Apple to justify intrusive devices that are scanning everybody's stuff.

The I think the answer to a lot of those things is if you're doing something that's bad, there's usually ways of going after it, that don't involve this gigantic surveillance state that was after all only built in the last 10 or 20 years, just normal police work that you can do.

If they're actually like, you know, a bad guy, there's other forms of police work, you can get search warrants, you don't have this completely lawless thing, where you just, you know, some guy in San Francisco hits a button and you're digitally executed. And so, so, you know, it's not that there isn't any possibility for rule of law, it's just that it has to actually be exercised in this.

Listen, I think we're a long way away from decentralized social networking actually being the norm or being a solution, Jason, I think we're at the step of actually figuring out and how much of a difference we can make in the way that we think we're doing and how much of a difference we're making in our own work.

And so, I think, you know, I think we're going to have to work on that. And I think that's the thing that's really important. I think that's the thing that's really important. I think that's the thing that's really important. And I think that's the thing that's really important. I think that's the thing that's really important.

And I think that's the thing that's really important. And I think that's the thing that's really important. And I think that's the thing that's really important. And I think that's the thing that's really important. And I think that's the thing that's really important. And I think that's the thing that's really important.

And I think that's the thing that's really important. And I think that's the thing that's really important. And I think that's the thing that's really important. And I think that's the thing that's really important. And I think that's the thing that's really important. And I think the more important thing that I take away from all of this is that we've all kind of let it probably get a little bit too far.

And I think now that there's a plurality, something's going to happen. I don't think it's going to be right. I don't think it's going to be just it's kind of like trying to perform surgery with a rusty knife. There's going to be all kinds of collateral damage. You're speaking specifically to how to police Facebook, Twitter, social networks.

I think it's just like social media. I think we've jumped the shark at this point. And so, and I think folks will want to- Would you see desexualization as the solution, like Balaji? I do think that that's the ultimate solution for two key things. One is the most important thing that we all want is to know what the actual economic relationship we're having with folks that we spend time with is.

So when we spend time with friends, that's friendship. There's no economic relationship there necessarily. When we spend time with a lot of these applications, there is a subtle economic relationship that is actually hidden from us, which is that we believe we're getting value for free, but really what's happening is we're giving back a bunch of information that we don't know.

When you move to a world of decentralization, you shine a light on how people make money and you allow us to vote. Do I want it? Do I not? That single feature will provide more clarity for people than any of this other stuff will because it'll force people to then step into an economic relationship with the people that they're going to vote for.

And that's the ultimate solution. I think that's the ultimate solution. I think that's the ultimate solution. And I think that that's just fair because those folks should be allowed to make money, but we should also be allowed to know what the consequences are and then decide. David, you are a big proponent of freedom of speech.

We saw massive election interference, the Russians trying to use social media to create division, other countries doing it to each other. It's not just the US and Russia, it's China and Russia and everybody doing it to each other. Do you believe that something like election interference and those bots would be solved?

Or it would get worse because of decentralization? Are you a fan of decentralization? Or would you rather have a centralized Facebook, Twitter and somebody responsible like Zuckerberg or Jack to mitigate this for democracies around the world? Well, the problem that we have is we do have a problem of social networks spreading lies and misinformation.

However, the people who are in charge of censoring those social networks keep getting it wrong. So they allow disinformation to be spread by official channels, whether it's, you know, whether it's corporate journalists... Are you going to say Dr. Fauci? There's so many official channels that get things wrong. We talked last week about the Rolling Stone ivermectin hoax.

There's been absolutely no censorship of that manifestly wrong story. There's no labeling of it. But then a subjective opinion, like what Dave Portnoy posted about AOC attending the Met Gala, which can't be factually wrong, because it's just him, an opinion that gets fact checked and labeled. It's bizarre. So the situation we have today is we're not preventing misinformation.

We're just enforcing the cultural and political biases of the people who have the power. And that is always a problem with censorship. And this is why I agree with Justice Brandeis when he said that, you know, the sunlight's the best disinfectant. The answer to bad speech is more speech.

And that's why I agree with Justice Brandeis when he said that, you know, the sunlight's the best disinfectant. The answer to bad speech is more speech. We need to have more free and open marketplace of ideas. And that ultimately is how you prevent disinformation. So decentralized Twitter, decentralized social networks, do you think that is too much sunlight and too unruly?

The fact that things could be spread on there and not stopped? Well, I'd like to see what those things look like when we actually have them. I agree with Jermon, we're still some ways off from that. Are we? I mean, but yeah, can I say a few things? Yeah, go ahead.

Because I think we have these out there. Isn't Mastodon out there and other services out there and they're content? Yeah. I think we're content with these very issues. So it's happening. This philosophy was not... Sorry, sorry, Balaji. I'll just say one thing before you go. But like this, this general philosophy is not novel.

You know, the internet and the word are being called the tech platforms were meant to be the response to the undue influence that kind of Americans thought existed already in the media when they emerged in the late 90s. And you know, you can go back hundreds of years, like the state was meant to be the response to the church.

And you know, the media was meant to be the response to the state and propaganda. And then the tech companies were meant to be the response to media. And you know, now we're talking about decentralization kind of being the response to tech. And at some point, you know, information accrues in this kind of asymmetric way.

And it becomes called that undue influencer. And that I think ends up becoming the recurring battle that we'll continue to see whether or not this notion of decentralized systems actually is the endpoint or is just the next stepping stone in the evolution. That is this constant kind of evolving cat and mouse game of where does the information lie, who has control over it, and who's influencing people ends up kind of being I think, the big narrative that we'll kind of realize over the next couple decades.

But I don't know biology if it becomes the endpoint, right? I mean, this is this feels to me part of a longer form narrative. Yeah, so I think like lots of things look cyclic. If you look at them on like this, if you look from the z axis is more like a helix where you do make progress, even if it seems to your goal, you're not going to be able to do it.

But if you look at the z axis, you're going in a loop. And so I think, you know, it's centralized, then you decentralize, and you re centralize. It's like the concept of unbundling and bundling, you unbundle the CD into individual MP3s, you re bundle into playlists, right? And so with decentralized media, it's not purely every single node on their own, I think it's more like a million hubs and a billion spokes.

And Jason, to your point, basically, most of those hubs are not going to allow things that 99.99% of people think are bad, like CSAM, you know, as for the other things, like, you know, slander, hack documents, you mentioned, the thing is current central arbiters will falsely accuse people of these things or enforce them in political ways.

It's the centralization is actually also not a solution is being abused as sacks, you know, points out, in fact, official disinformation early in COVID, which, you know, I had to like, basically beat back with a stick, fortunately, you know, got some of it out in time. But, you know, people said the flu is more serious, the travel bans were over.

So, you know, I think that's a big part of the problem. Overreactions that only Wuhan visitors were at risk, that avoiding handshakes is paranoid that the virus is contained, tests are available, masks don't help, you know, all that stuff, the Surgeon General himself, you know, to, you know, people don't wear masks, right?

BuzzFeed, you know, NYT, all these guys got the story wrong, and then they rewrote history to pretend that they didn't. So that, to me is a much greater danger when you have a single source of truth that's false. We're picking the least bad solution. It's such a good point, because I'm old enough to remember when Balaji was right about everything related to the beginning of COVID.

And I'm old enough to remember when in April of last year, I wrote a piece in favor of masks, when the WHO and the Surgeon General and all these official channels were saying don't wear masks. So the problem is with official censorship is that they keep getting it wrong.

They keep getting it wrong. And I want to bring up one more quick point. Okay, Jason, you mentioned foreign interference on Facebook, I would really encourage anybody who's concerned about that issue, to look up you can go look, you just Google the actual ads that were run by agents of the FSB on Facebook.

During the 2016 election, you can actually see the ads they ran. I want to make two points about that. Number one, the ads are ridiculous. They are. They are sort of like an absurd, you know, foreigners perspective. They're meme, they're meme with bad English. Yes. Bad English. And it's it's somebody who doesn't understand American culture's attempt to propagandize an American and you look at it, it's so ham handed.

Let me give an example. It's like, in one of them, they've got Jesus arm wrestling with the devil, saying, and it's Jesus saying that I support Trump, and the devil saying I support Hillary Clinton. I mean, literally stuff like that. Okay, it's utterly you'd see at a Trump rally.

It's utterly absurd. And nobody would ever be convinced by it. The second thing is the second thing about it is that when you actually look at the number of impressions that were created by the sum total of all of the so the so called disinformation of all these ads, it is a fractionally small, infinitesimal drop in the ocean compared to the total number impressions on Facebook.

And so I'm not disputing the fact that somebody in the basement somewhere in Moscow, perhaps was running some sort of disinformation operation that was running ads on Facebook. What I am saying is that when you actually look at the effect, quantitatively and qualitatively, you realize that that whole story was massively blown out of proportion in order to create a hysteria that then justify censorship, then justifies the empowerment by centralized authorities to be able to regulate networks with the effect that the people in power end up censoring in ways that do not support the truth, but actually just reinforce their own power.

That is what the disinformation story is really about. No, it's not. But it's really about sacks is that Russia wants to pit people like you and me against each other, you're right leaning on left leaning. And what they want to do is create this moment where you and I are fighting over this instead of fighting Russia.

Russia has this as a strategy to demoralize us. And this is classic KGB technique. So battles back and forth between Americans so we don't fight against. Well, I have no interest in fighting Russia per se. I'm not interested in picking fights with foreign countries. And you should want to fight against Russian interference.

Yeah, I'm also not engaging in a fight with fellow Americans. I'm attempting to D propagandize fellow Americans who've been led to believe that Russian interference the election was I'm not saying it didn't happen. But they didn't let me know that led happened, but they've been led to believe that it was a greater threat than it actually was in order to empower centralized authorities to engage in censorship over social network.

So I'm trying to essentially deprogram an enormous amount of programming that's taken place. I do not consider that to be fighting with fellow Americans. Well, I mean, the point is you have the GOP counting votes even to this day, saying the election was stolen. And then you have on the left, you have the Democrats saying Russia won the election for Trump.

In both cases, these are probably factually incorrect. In our last podcast, I cited the piece by Rich Lowry, which he is the editor of National Review, speaking to conservatives saying that this whole stolen election myth. Yes, he called it a myth is an albatross is it is nothing it will do nothing but backfire on conservatives and Republicans.

I think there are plenty of people who recognize that story to be what it is. We're talking about something very different here. I kind of just want to pivot forward a little bit. And I think it's a good question with Bology on the line. But yeah, let's just use Bology.

Let's assume we move forward to this decentralized model where there isn't a central media platform that adjudicates content and makes it available to the users of the platform. So now in a decentralized world, take YouTube, for example. YouTube has an application layer, which is the website we all use to access the videos.

And there's a recommendation list that pops up. And then all the media that exists on the YouTube platform sits on some servers. And so the application is how I'm selecting what media to watch. But that's being projected to me because of the recommendations being made by Google and the search function.

If you guys remember, I don't know if you guys are old enough. But in the early 90s, we were all on gopher boards and we were trying to find information. And it was a total cluster. There's just no way to find what you're looking for. And so search became the great unlock and use that.

And search became the great unlock for accessing content on this distributed network that we call the internet. Now in the future, if all of the YouTube media is decentralized and sits on distributed servers and sits on a chain or whatever, what does the application layer look like, Balaji? Because how do you end up giving...

Users are ultimately going to have to pick an application or pick a tool to help them access media, to help them access information. And there has to be to some degree a search function or an algorithmic function that creates the list of what content to read. Or are they simply subscribing to nodes on the network?

And that's the future of decentralization where there's no longer a search or recommendation function, but there is simply a subscription function. And I think that to me is the big philosophical question. Because from a user experience perspective, people want things easy and simple. They want to have things recommended to them.

They want to have a bunch of a list of things and they click down the list and they're done. I'm not sure most people as we saw in web 2.0 when there were all these like, make your own website stuff and you had RSS feeds. And that all died because it was complicated and it was difficult and it wasn't great content for most people.

They preferred having stuff presented to them. So do we just end up with like 10, 20, 30 subscription applications that create different algorithms and different kind of access points for the content? Or are people just living in a subscription universe in a decentralized world when it comes to media?

It's a great question. So I think first, we have some vision of what that world looks like already. Because if you think about block explorers and exchanges and wallets, and much of the rest of the crypto ecosystem, they are all clients to the Bitcoin and Ethereum and other blockchains, right?

So I wrote this post called Yes, You May Need a Blockchain, where people have said, oh, blockchains are just slow databases. And that's like saying the early iPhone camera is just a poor camera. Yes, it was worse on one dimension, image quality, but it was far better on other dimensions.

And that's why I think it's important to think about the blockchain as a way to understand the blockchain. And I think that's a really good way to understand the blockchain. And I think that's why I think it's important to think about the blockchain as a way to understand the blockchain.

And I think that's why I think it's important to think about the blockchain as a way to understand the blockchain. It was free, it was bundled, it was programmable, it was connected to a network and so on. And so blockchains, yes, they have lower transaction throughput, but they are 1000x or more on another dimension, which is the number of simultaneous root users.

That is to say, it's a blockchain is a massively multiplayer database, where every user is a root user. That's meaning everybody can read the rows in the Bitcoin blockchain. And anybody who has some Bitcoin can write a row that's a debit or a credit to someone else. And anybody with compute can mine blocks.

Okay, so it's open and permissionless. Similarly, for a decentralized social network could operate in a similar way. Whereas, let's say something like Twitter, or PayPal, the root password is not public, nobody can can access it. And so what this leads to, to kind of continue your point is basically, I think there's basically been three eras of the internet.

The first was P2P, which was, you know, peer to peer, right. And so individual nodes are point to point communicating. And that's FTP. And it's, it was telnet before SSH. MIP address. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Right. And so the great thing about this is open source is peer to peer is fully programmable, you can see everything right, then, because of search, because of social, because of the rise of the second era MVC model view controller, essentially many protocols like social networking or search are not efficient.

If every node is pinging every other node, you can't ping every other node with the index of the web, you can't ping every other node with Facebook's entire social graph, when you know, you go and message somebody, you want a central hub with their photos and stuff. So you can just send a few packets back and forth, right.

And this led to that, you know, the last 15 years, these gigantic hubs last 20 years, these giant hubs, search and social and messaging, two sided marketplaces, hub and spoke architecture. And these hubs have global state and they're highly monetizable, you can make billions of dollars off them as many of our friends have, right.

By the way, the early peer to peer versions failed, right? Because I juiced I mean, you know, the alternative didn't really work out. But right, the hub and spoke. Yeah, exactly. Right. So I mean, BitTorrent did exist during this time, it's not like it was zero. But generally speaking, this was the era of hub and spoke MVC dominance.

And now we're into a third architecture, which I call CBC, client, blockchain client. And so desktop clients have a blockchain that they communicate with, for example, I have a wallet, you have a wallet on your client, and then the Bitcoin blockchain intermediates us I debit in credit you, okay, that's a different architecture than both MVC and CBC, it actually combines the positive qualities of both.

It's decentralized and open source and programmable, like peer to peer. But it also has global state and it's highly monetizable, like MVC. So combines the best of both worlds. And it has some something that's very new, which is not open source, where it's open source code, it's open state, where it's open state database.

Like open state means the back end is open also. So all the applications that get built out, essentially, our clients that same back end that same Bitcoin or Ethereum or what have you back end, and then you kind of exchange between them. And the true scarcity now comes not from locking in your users, but from holding a currency kind of gets reduced, the IP gets reduced to its minimal viable thing, which is holding that cryptocurrency and what you can do that.

But so give me the media, give me the media analogy, right? So where does the media sit? And how do I as a user have an experience on what media to view and to access? Like think about because again, like just speaking in a layman's term for folks, maybe to understand, you know, most people, I don't think understand the dynamics of what underlies a social network as much as they understand the user experience of browsing YouTube, right?

So yeah, what is what is my option in browsing the decentralized version of YouTube? What does that experience end up looking like in this decentralized world? Right? Who ultimately adjudicates the algorithm that defines what my recommended videos are that I'm going to be accessing from these kind of, you know, different nodes?

Well, I think the idea is you can bring your own, you can pick one, there'll be a library. Well, that's my point is like the picking function is what doesn't didn't work in web 1.0 or web 0.9. Right? So we'll take a take a look at. So first of all, that state could potentially so today, blockchains are not very scalable.

But tomorrow, they already actually they're improving very rapidly. If you're if you're following Matic, if you're following polygon, and if you're looking at what Solana is doing, like you can do a lot more on chain in 2021, that you couldn't 2020. It's kind of like bandwidth, it just improves every year.

So more applications will become feasible like search indexes. Moreover, blockchains actually suggest to your specific point about search indexing, blockchains actually radically simplify search engine to such a point, there are dark horse competitor to Google. What I mean by that is Google index the open web because open web is open.

And then social networks were like a dark web, you know, to them where that's why they were so mad, Google was so mad, it couldn't acquire Facebook, right? Because it could index it couldn't index Twitter had two deals with them. That's all on their, you know, on their server.

So the social web is even harder to index than the open web. But block explore blockchains. And, you know, block explorers, which are like search engines on top of them, blockchains are easier to index in either the open web or the social web. And the reason is many of the problems associated with indexing just go away.

For example, just one small problem, as you're probably aware, when you're indexing the open web, let's say you've got a million websites, you're crawling, each one of them, you only have you only have a certain bandwidth amount total. So you have to figure out, okay, do I have recrawled this site or this one, which one is going to freshen?

Okay, does this update every day or not? So you have to run all these statistical estimators just to figure out when to crawl a site. All that goes away, for example, in the context of a blockchain where you just subscribe, and you get a block of transactions, but it's got the real time index and they can either there's no advantage being Google and having to serve from freeberg.

We got to wrap for best each moth. David Sachs, Friedberg and our best ebology. Thanks for coming on the pod and we will see you all next time on the all in the podcast. Bye bye. David Sachs: Let your winners ride. David Sachs: Rain man, David Sachs. David Sachs: We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy.

David Sachs: Love you. David Sachs: Queen of Kinwa. David Sachs: We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just useless. It's like this like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow. David Sachs: What your beat? David Sachs: What your beat?

David Sachs: We need to get merch. David Sachs: I'm going all in. I'm going all in. I'll talk to you next time.