E157: Epic legal win, OpenAI's news deal, FCC targets Elon, the limits of free speech & more
发布时间 2023-12-16 00:59:51 来源
We're going mullet this week in honor of your closest to mullet right now, sex, I see you trying to talk to lettuce in. It's not going to work. We see it back there. Well, I need the ponytail. Wow. You went full knot. Where is this? I'm not a secret camera in his room. What is this? No, my kids talk it. Oh my. Are you really doing a douche not? One of my daughters is playing with my hair. She wants to see if she can make a ponytail with it. So she made a ponytail and then took a photo. So we've got it into a chat GPT to ask who it looked like. And it said Thomas Jefferson. Just a serious question. Did you do a fit chat with Tucker on that? Did you send him that and say fit check? You're not everything else. Do a Tucker, J Cal, the jokes.
本周，我们要纪念你最接近发型“鲑鱼尾”的样子，亲爱的翩翩公子，我看到你试图与生菜交谈，可惜是不会有结果的。我们都看到了。嗯，我需要有个马尾辫。哇，你完全扎了个结。这是什么情况？我没在他房间放秘密摄像头。这是什么？不，是我孩子在调戏我。天哪。你真的弄了个狂妄的发型？我的一个女儿正在玩我的头发。她想看看她能不能给我弄个马尾辫，所以她给我扎了个马尾辫，然后拍了张照片。所以我们把照片放进一个聊天软件里问它像谁，它说像托马斯·杰斐逊。说真的，你是不是给塔克做了一个合适性试衣间会谈？你把照片发给他说“看看这衣服怎么样”？还有其他的。给塔克来个合适性试衣看看，笑话开个玩笑。
Well, look at this. Well, if you guys don't know what a fit check is as your daughters. Oh, wait, what check? A fit check. A fit check. You take a picture of yourself, you send it to your friends, you say fit check. And then they tell you if you look good for the day. Oh, OK, it's kind of like it's kind of like a wellness check, but for how you look. For fashion. Oh, yeah. Yeah, it's like freeberg send you. I'm having this and then we do a wellness check on freeberg. So he's going to show up for the show. Are we doing wellness check on you and Alex Jones comes back to Twitter. I'm putting it out there right now. And Alex Jones is on the back half of the show just to tease it. Just like I'm going to tease these photos. I pulled the archives and here I am in 1984 with my mullet. That's a J Cal mullet from 1984 in Staten Island on the way to a Boy Scout trip.
嗯，看这个。嗯，如果你们不知道什么叫做fit check，问问你们的女儿吧。哦，等等，什么检查？fit check。fit check。你拍张照片发给朋友，说fit check。然后他们告诉你当天是否好看。哦，好的，有点像是健康检查，但是是关于你的外貌的。关于时尚的。哦，对，就像freeberg发给你的一样。我正在对freeberg做健康检查，他得准备好参加节目。我们也要对你做健康检查，万一Alex Jones回到推特上了。我现在就说好了，Alex Jones会在节目后半段出现，只是为了挑逗一下。就像我现在挑逗一下这些照片。我找出了档案，这是1984年我在斯坦顿岛上去童子军旅行的时候留的长发。
But I thought I'd have a little fun. Sacks actually has been working. He's got his hairstylist. Yeah, well, the great like a Lord of the Rings character like an Elphin warrior. No, it looks like the other era. Exactly. So when it will punch that up, which I'm not actually surprisingly. Surprisingly, I can't love it. I can't look. It's horrible. Freeberg. You're not giving away. I'm like here it is. Freeberg looks like a birdie. He looks like Orlando Bloomin, Lord of the Rings, right? Actually, it looks like more like that vampire movie. What was it that he does look like interview with the vampire or he looks like he's teaching gender studies at Berkeley and his nine non-binary. So if you want to take understanding non-binary as the judge studies, one Oh one, it's coming this spring. Freeberg's going to be teaching on his alma mater. Well done.
但是我想开个小小的玩笑。萨克斯确实一直在工作。他有他的发型师。是的，就像《指环王》的角色那样，像一个精灵战士。不，它看起来像另一个时代的样子。没错，所以我也不想加强这一点，这真是令人惊讶。令人惊讶的是，我无法喜欢它。我不能看。太可怕了。弗里伯格，你就不会揭穿。我就是在这里啊。弗里伯格看起来像小鸟。他看起来像奥兰多·布鲁明，《指环王》对吧？实际上，他看起来更像那部吸血鬼的电影。是什么来着，他看起来像《吸血鬼恋人》或者他看起来像在伯克利大学教授性别研究课程，对九个无性别人群研究进行理解。所以，如果你想了解无性别作为性别研究，这门课将在今年春季开设。弗里伯格将在他的母校教授。干得好。
I'll find you guys a photo. I'll send it to you as my I did have a ponytail. I sported it from about age 16 to 19. When I smoked cigarettes to it, I've got photos with the ponytail, the trend coat, smoking sick. So it fits the fits the mold. All right. So in the spirit of mullets, let's go business first and we will go to the party at the end. Let's get started boys.
我会给你们找一张照片。我会把它发送给你们，因为我曾经留过马尾辫。从16岁到19岁期间，我一直留着它。当我吸烟时，我有一些留着马尾辫的照片，穿着时髦的外套，烟雾缭绕。所以它适合这个风格。好了。那么为了庆祝鬃毛发型，我们先谈正经的事情，最后再去参加派对。让我们开始吧，伙计们。
With me again today here on the All In Podcast, the king of we've retired queen of quinoa because David Freiberg is CEO of a startup. He can still be the queen. This is the main product. Freiberg. No, so he's the king of B. He's the king of vegetables off the record. Wait, wait, it's classified what crop you're working on. Yeah, absolutely. OK, absolutely. It's a SaaS company. Like a SaaS company wants to keep it on the DL, which vertical they're going after finance or salons, whatever. He's got to keep those. It could be carrots. You never know. You could be Captain carrots. You never know. Just not beats. OK, Freiberg. We don't need more beats in the world. Yeah, I'm going to say no.
在今天的All In Podcast中，我再次和大家在这里，Dave Freiberg是一家创业公司的首席执行官，我们曾经把他封为准备退休的藜麦之王，但他现在可以继续保持女王的称号。这是主要产品。Freiberg 并不是，他是B 的王者。他是蔬菜之王，不过这个是私下的说法。等等，等等，他们正在从事哪一种农作物是保密的。是的，确实是这样。他们是一家SaaS公司，想保持低调，不公开他们所针对的垂直领域，是金融还是美容院，无论如何，他们必须保密。他可能在研究胡萝卜，你永远不知道。他可能成为胡萝卜大人，你永远不知道。只是不能是甜菜。好了，Freiberg，我们不需要世界上更多的甜菜了。是的，我要说不。
Fennel. Dude, no, those are delicious. Beets are delicious. Yeah, you're right. No more beats. Beets with some feta cheese delicious. Yeah, you're right. You need more. Beets for goat cheese. Brussels sprouts can be very good. You know, if you're a saute them, look, you caramelize the. Yes, I'm with you. Very good. Let's make those cheaper. Freiberg. Yeah, bigger and cheaper and more tasty. You know, people people, people dunk on, but it's a great vegetable is cabbage. I like that. Like you like shred cabbage into a salad and you put a little oil, a little lemon, a little salt, a little salad, like a chinchin in LA. That's nice. Exactly. Yeah, Saks, did you like Freiberg's Christmas party last week? How did you enjoy it as much as we did? Oh, great. Oh, right. Saks didn't show up. I missed the party. Yes, you did.
茴香。喂，不，那些东西很美味的。甜菜很美味。是的，你说得对。再也没有打击。甜菜加一些费塔奶酪很美味。是的，你说得对。你需要更多。用山羊奶酪做甜菜。炒布鲁塞尔芽菜也很好吃。你知道吗，如果你炒熟它们，看，你把它们弄焦。是的，我同意。非常好。我们把它们做得更便宜吧。费伯格（一种蔬菜）。是的，更大更便宜，更好吃。你知道吗，人们总是诋毁它，但其实是一种很棒的蔬菜就是卷心菜。我喜欢那样。你把卷心菜切成丝放在沙拉里，加点油，点柠檬，点盐，点沙拉酱，就像LA的味道。那很好。完全正确。嗨，萨克斯，你喜欢费伯格上周的圣诞派对吗？你和我们一样喜欢吗？哦，太棒了。哦，对了。萨克斯没有来。我错过了派对。是的，你错过了。
Next week. Who does a Christmas party first week? Come on. Before you tell your story, a very kind gentleman rings the door to my gate. I opened the gate. The guy drives in. He gets out. He's like a big guy kind of says Mr. Freiberg and I'm like, what am I getting served? And he goes to the backseat and I'm like, Oh my God, I'm going to get shot. He reaches in and he pulls out a beautifully wrapped gift. He's like, this is from Mr. Saks, Mr. Freiberg, happy holidays. And then he gave me like a touch on the shoulder or like he does this thing where he goes like this little bow. He got back in his car and he drove away. What is he sure? Yeah, it was like when you go to an event, he did the Amman thing that they do. Oh, right. That wasn't his that was his valet. That's his valet. He stole the valet from the Amman. He was the most thoughtful no show I've ever had. I will say Saks. OK, well, I'm glad to hear that. I'm glad to hear that. Well, what's funny is I just checked my inbox and my invitation from you is sitting in there because I've been meaning to go, but I didn't realize it was so soon. So I'm just looking at the day. It was December 9th. I didn't realize it was five days ago. Sorry about that. Someone in your household did. So we appreciate it. OK, someone knew I went, but this is my this is my second or third year going. So I pre I pre-gamed it. I went and I got a protein free game. I got me a bunch of steak and a burger. And then I went and sure enough, I talked to the staff and the staff said after much debate and harangue with Freiberg, he allowed cheese this year.
下周。谁会在圣诞节前一周举办派对？来吧。在你讲故事之前，有位非常和善的绅士敲了敲我的大门。我开了门。那个家伙开车进来。他下车了。他是个高大的家伙，说：“弗雷伯格先生”，我就像，“我要被搞糟了吗？”然后他走到后座，我就像：“哦天啊，我要被枪杀了。”他伸手进去，拿出一个精美包装的礼物。他说：“这是萨克斯先生送给弗雷伯格先生的，节日快乐。”然后他还轻轻拍了下我的肩膀或者说他做了一个像礼拜的动作。他回到车里，然后开走了。他在搞啥？对，就像你去参加一个活动时，他那种阿曼的动作。噢，对了。他不是他的司机，他是偷了阿曼的司机。他是我遇到的最体贴的没有出席的人。我要说萨克斯做得不错。好吧，我很高兴听到这个。我很高兴听到这个。有趣的是我刚刚看了我的收件箱，发现了你的邀请，因为我一直想去，但我没有意识到时间这么近。我现在才看到日期，9月12日。我没有意识到已经五天前了，对此感到抱歉。你家里有人知道。所以我们很感谢。好吧，有人知道我去了，但这是我去的第二，或者第三年了。所以我提前准备好了，我吃了蛋白质做准备，我买了很多牛排和汉堡。然后我去了，果然，我和工作人员交谈后，他们说经过长时间的争论和纠缠，弗雷伯格今年允许加了奶酪。
You're allowed to sushi with a whole sushi bladder. No, stop it and have sushi. OK, to tell the truth, go ahead. Tell the truth. I get in the car to drive 90 minutes, 90 minutes to pre I remember. OK, that's the poker trip for me, by the way. But yeah, I and I not text Allison and David were on our way. Trump wants to know, will there be meat because I'm driving? So I can't tell what the meat and Ali says. Oh, yeah, don't worry. They'll be sushi and the not text back. OK, we just got off the highway. We're going home. We'll see you later because we don't. Says there's going to be fish. Fine. I get there. Haven't eaten a thing. I am starving. Ravenous. I start I start to work my way through the appetizers. There's like sliced green peppers and red peppers. There's like some falafels. Then there was a Spanish omelette. It's all pretty decent. OK. And I'm like, where's the sushi? And so Phil Deutsch says a thousand bucks. There's no sushi. And I said, no, there's Freiberg texted me. He said, I've asked all the people working here. They say there's no sushi. So I bet him a thousand dollars. I go outside to where the sushi is. And you know how we used to make fun of Skye for having the filler fruit at the poker? Yeah, yeah. You can't let canalope and honey do. And that's all there was. Yeah. There was no sushi, but there was two or three rolls with four pieces of salmon strategically cut just laying over. I won the bet.
你可以享用一整个寿司胆。不，别这样，还是吃寿司吧。好吧，说实话，你尽管继续。说实话。我上车开了90分钟，90分钟到大概...好了，这就是我要去的撲克之旅。对了，我没有给艾丽森和大卫发短信说我们上路了。特朗普想知道，会不会有肉，因为我在开车。所以我不能告诉那个肉是什么，艾丽说没问题，会有寿司，随即就没回短信。好了，我们刚刚从高速公路下来，我们要回家了。晚点见，因为我们不。说不会有鱼。没关系。到了那里，我什么都没吃。我饿得要死。我开始吃开胃菜。有像切片青椒和红椒，还有一些炸豆丸。然后还有一个西班牙煎鸡蛋卷。都还可以。好了，我说，寿司在哪里？然后菲尔·德奇说我赌一千块，寿司没有了。我说不，弗莱伯格给我发短信说问过这里的所有员工，他们说没有寿司。所以我和他赌了一千块。我出去看看寿司在哪里。你还记得我们以前嘲笑斯凯在撲克中只有切水果吗？恩，恩，对了。你不能只有蜜瓜和蜜黄瓜。但那里只有蜜瓜和蜜黄瓜。是的。没有寿司，但有两三个卷寿司，每个上铺着四片刚好切好的三文鱼。我赢了赌注。
I was so hungry. I was like, what do I eat? I'm starving. So I keep eating the omelette. I keep eating the vegetarian food. And then I see these brownies. And I'm like, I'll just have a brownie. Then I had two brownies and then I was like, OK, I need to stop. I can't I can't have this. I'm and I'm still so hungry.
我饿得很厉害。我就像，我应该吃点什么呢？我饿得快要虚脱了。所以我继续吃煎蛋卷，继续吃素食，然后我看到了这些布朗尼蛋糕。我心想，我就吃一个布朗尼吧。然后我吃了两个布朗尼，然后我意识到，好了，我需要停下来了。我不能再吃了。可我还是饥肠辘辘。
I walk outside J. Cal where I saw you. We're having a cup of coffee and you know what? I ate five baklava. And then I was like, this is disgusting. I've had no protein. I've had no carbohydrates. I've had no fiber. I've had a fucking 3000 calories of sugar.
我在J. Cal外面走着，看见了你。我们在喝咖啡，你知道吗？我吃了五块巴卡拉糕点。然后我突然觉得这太恶心了。我没有摄入蛋白质，也没有摄入碳水化合物和纤维。我摄入了三千卡路里的糖，简直太过分了。
I grabbed that and I charged him. I was so bad. He did. He Irish that I didn't see the thing about our goodbye free. We're going to talk to about it yesterday. We talked it out, but I was. I must have had 6,000 calories at his Christmas. I'm coming over to Tim Austin. I know it's only going to be tritec the whole night. I'm sure not a full of all inside. It sounds like J. Cal preloaded the meat. He he got ready. So I on the way, no, seriously, after last year, last year, I left that party and I just typed in. I just said to my. Pop us up to go to pop us closest in an outburger and I literally got a double double and then I just had a second one on the way up this time. I literally had a steak for dinner and then I went and then I too had some.
我拿了那个东西，然后向他收费。我很糟糕。他说过，我没有注意到我们告别的事情。我们昨天谈到了这个问题。我们解决了它，但我感到有些难过。在他的圣诞节上，我可能摄入了6000卡路里。我要去蒂姆奥斯汀那边。我知道整夜都会是嬉皮笑脸的。我确定自己内部不会充满所有东西。听起来J.Cal预先加载了肉。他准备好了。所以在路上，没有，说真的，去年，去年我离开那个派对后，我只是输入了我的。我只是对我父亲说去波普斯最近的In-N-Out汉堡店，然后我真的吃了一个双层汉堡，在上山的路上我又吃了一个。这次我晚餐吃了一块牛排，然后吃了一些。
Have you guys ever had Popeyes? Of course. I had never had it. My son asked to get it last week last week. I'd never had it. Can you believe it? Here we go. It is the most incredible thing I've ever tasted. It's Popeyes sandwiches. Wow. Wait for the out of touch. You do comments. The problem is not the eating of it. It's how you feel two hours later. Bob, I mean, I've had Chick-fil-A. You know, I've done the chicken sandwiches at other places, never up. Popeyes is incredible. Pretty incredible. So then I had not almost on the edge of convincing her to go to Popeyes on the way home, but we missed the closing time so we couldn't get it. I got go to Starbird or Bonchon. Those are two other elite. No, bro. Not not. I'm not talking fancy chicken. I've had like the fancy chicken sandwiches. I'm saying Popeyes is incredible.
你们有没有吃过Popeyes? 当然了。我以前从来没有吃过。我儿子上周要求去吃。你能相信吗？我们去了。这是我尝过的最难以置信的东西。就是Popeyes的三明治。哇。等着看看反应。问题不是吃的时候，而是两个小时后的感觉。鲍勃，我的意思是，我吃过Chick-fil-A。你知道，我在其他地方也吃过鸡肉三明治，但从没吃过Popeyes。它真的太棒了。非常棒。然后我差点说服她回家路上去Popeyes，但我们错过了关门时间，没能吃到。我只能去Starbird或者Bonchon。那是另外两家高级餐厅。不，伙计，不是的。我不说的是高档的鸡肉三明治。我说的是Popeyes太好吃了。
I like it. I like it. A austerity. Shama. Here we go. Have you had a play of fish? All right. Let's get the show started here.
我喜欢它。我喜欢它。一种朴素的感觉。沙玛。我们开始吧。你试玩过鱼吗？好的。让我们开始演出吧。
Of course, with me again, the King of Beep, the dictator and the rain man. Let's get to work. All right. Everybody epic. The makers of Fortnite just won a huge case. With Google over the Play App Store on Android phones, for those of you who don't know, App Store has become an absolutely huge business for Apple and Google. Google App Store generates $50 billion of revenue a year now. That's about 17% of Google's total revenue. Apple's App Store and services, $85 billion in annual revenue. These are on top of their franchises of hardware and search. Majora in San Francisco.
当然，又是我，嘟嘟的国王、独裁者和下雨之人。让我们开始工作吧。好的，所有人都很厉害。Fortnite的开发商刚刚赢得了一场重大官司。与Google在Android手机上的Play应用商店有关。对于那些不知道的人来说，应用商店已经成为了苹果和谷歌的一项绝对庞大的业务。现在，谷歌的应用商店每年产生500亿美元的收入，这相当于谷歌总收入的17%。苹果的应用商店和服务每年有850亿美元的收入。这些还不包括他们的硬件和搜索业务。报道自旧金山。
You know, I'm honestly found that Google violated California's federal antitrust laws through sweetheart deals and annoying workarounds that stifled competition. For example, Google got spooked that other game developers would follow Epic's lead and launch their own app stores or route people directly to their websites to avoid the 30% take rate. Some might call that attacks. Google calculated they would lose 2 billion to 3.5 billion in revenue annually if the other major game developers followed Epic. So they created a program code name project hub where they basically paid out bribes or incentives to discourage large developers from building their own competitive app stores. They also gave Spotify a sweetheart deal of 0% and Google paid activation $360 million to keep in the play store. And the discovery in this case was absolutely wild. According to testimony in the trial, Google had deleted some employees chat logs. And the judge told the jury to assume that that deleted information wouldn't have been favorable to Google.
你知道，老实说，我发现谷歌通过亲密交易和烦人的折衷方案违反了加州的联邦反托拉斯法，压制了竞争。例如，谷歌担心其他游戏开发商会效仿 Epic 的做法，推出自己的应用商店或直接将用户引导至其网站，以避免支付30%的抽成。有人可能称之为攻击。谷歌计算出，如果其他主要游戏开发商效仿 Epic，他们每年将损失从20亿到35亿美元的营收。因此，他们创建了一个名为“项目中心”的计划，基本上是通过支付贿赂或激励来阻止大型开发商建立竞争性的应用商店。他们还给予 Spotify 一个优惠待遇，即0%的佣金，并支付了3.6亿美元的激活费用，以使其在谷歌应用商店中保持存在。这个案件中的发现真是惊人。根据庭审中的证词，谷歌已删除了一些员工的聊天记录。法官告诉陪审团，假设那些被删除的信息对谷歌不利。
Jury only deliberated a few hours and Google plans to appeal the verdict, obviously. Epic isn't seeking damages. They just want Google to change their practices. They want to basically let people plug in their own billing system to avoid the 30% tax. We'll see what happens next freeburg. These stores clearly have monopolistic characteristics, but and Google actually allows for third party app stores. Maybe you can explain why you think Apple won their case against Epic, but Google lost.
陪审团仅仅进行了几个小时的审议，很明显谷歌计划对这个判决提出上诉。Epic并不寻求损害赔偿，他们只是希望谷歌改变他们的做法。他们基本上想允许人们接入他们自己的结算系统，以避开30%的税收。我们将看看接下来会发生什么，Freeburg。这些应用商店明显具有垄断特征，但是谷歌实际上允许第三方应用商店存在。也许你可以解释一下为什么你认为苹果赢得了与Epic的官司，而谷歌输了。
These are pretty different cases. The Apple case was a judge. This one was a jury of citizens in federal court. I think it's worth just backing up a minute and talking about the history of like apps on phones and how Android came to be prior to Google acquiring Android. You guys may remember there were a few companies that were the dominant OS providers, operating system providers to mobile phones. There was Nokia, there was Microsoft, there was Apple, and there was also BlackBerry. And at the time, a lot of the telcos, the Verizon's and AT&T's of the world, prior to this, were trying to make money by charging for people to install apps on phones. So that was the first business model in the mobile internet was the telco would make money and everyone fought against it. All the open internet providers said, this is ridiculous and it was clear that that was not going to be allowed. So ultimately, these operating systems became the play and which operating system was on which mobile phone and what did that operating system then allow to control what apps were allowed and so on.
这些是非常不同的情况。苹果案是由法官处理的，而这个案件是由联邦法院的陪审团处理的。我认为不妨回顾一下手机应用程序的历史，以及在谷歌收购安卓之前它是如何形成的。你们可能还记得有几家公司是主导移动电话操作系统供应商的，包括诺基亚、微软、苹果和黑莓。而当时，许多电信公司，包括 Verizon 和 AT&T，在这之前都试图通过向用户收费来安装手机应用程序来赚钱。这成为移动互联网的第一个商业模式，即电信公司通过此来盈利，但是所有开放式互联网提供商都对此表示反对，认为这是荒谬的，并且很明显这样的模式是不被允许的。因此，这些操作系统成为了主导力量，操作系统是安装在哪款手机上的，这就决定了哪些应用程序是允许的，等等。
So the reason Google bought Android is they wanted to make an open source alternative to all of these closed app and closed systems. So Google bought Android 2005, made a huge investment in growing the team and allowed anyone to use the Android OS, fork it, make their own versions of it, install it on their own hardware, run it however they wanted. Meanwhile, Google made an internal version of Android that could be used on any mobile handset company's phone as a pre-installed OS. Now, why did Google want to do this? They wanted to do this number one to make sure that the internet was still open and it wasn't going to end up being closed from a user's perspective. And number two, so that anyone can install any app they wanted. And the commercial interest for Google, which is number three, is so that Google could make search Google search the default search engine on that phone and have YouTube installed and all these other tools that Google makes money on, including their own app store.
所以谷歌收购Android的原因是他们希望制造一个开源的替代品，以替代所有这些封闭的应用和封闭的系统。因此，谷歌于2005年收购了Android，并在团队的发展上投入了巨大的资金，允许任何人使用Android操作系统，分叉它，制作自己的版本，并将其安装在自己的硬件上，以任何方式运行。与此同时，谷歌还开发了一个内部版本的Android，可以预装在任何手机制造商的手机上作为预装操作系统。那么，为什么谷歌要做这个呢？首先，他们想确保互联网仍然是开放的，并且不会从用户的角度来看转向封闭。其次，他们希望任何人都能安装他们想要的任何应用程序。而谷歌的商业利益，也就是第三点，是为了使谷歌搜索成为该手机上的默认搜索引擎，并预装YouTube和谷歌赚钱的其他工具，包括他们自己的应用商店。
Now, in Android, anyone can install any app they want on the phone. And so there's no restrictions, unlike in Apple, in the iOS, if you try and download an app off the internet, install it, it has to go through the app store. It has to be Apple verified in order to be allowed on the phone. So the whole point of Android was that it could be open. Anyone can install anything. What Epic claimed in this case was that Google's Android OS gave people security warnings. So if you ever have tried this, you download an app from a website on Android. It says warning warning, this may cause a virus on your phone. Are you sure you want to do this? This app hasn't been verified by Google, etc, etc. So it gives these warnings that scare consumers off of doing that. So Epic can, you can install Fortnite direct on your Android phone today and you can do it by downloading it from Epic's website in order to go through the Google Play Store and you can enter your credit card and you can pay for stuff. So it is, it is an open system that allows that.
在Android系统中，任何人都可以随意在手机上安装任何应用程序。所以与苹果的iOS不同的是，在iOS中，如果你试图从互联网上下载应用程序并安装，它必须经过应用商店的审核。它必须经过苹果的验证才能被允许在手机上运行。Android系统的初衷是为了保持开放性。任何人都可以安装任何应用。在这个案例中，Epic（开发者）声称Google的Android系统给用户带来了安全警告。因此，如果你曾尝试在Android上从网站上下载应用程序，它会显示警告：警告，这可能会在你的手机上引起病毒。你确定要这么做吗？这个应用程序未经Google验证等等。这样的警告会让消费者望而却步。因此，Epic可以让你直接在Android手机上安装《堡垒之夜》，你可以通过从Epic官网下载来完成，而不是通过Google Play商店。你可以输入你的信用卡信息进行支付。因此，它是一个允许进行这样操作的开放系统。
What these guys are claiming is that because Google can default the Google Play Store on the phone, it's basically what most consumers are going to use anyway. And so they're saying it's not fair. And because they also have influence over the OS and they're putting these security warnings, it's inappropriate because now it's scaring people from downloading stuff off the internet. So that's the big claim Epic's making. So Google has already said they're going to appeal this case because fundamentally, again, if this were really true and there really was deep antitrust issues with this, you would likely have seen a federal agency come after Google, not a private company suing them in a civil case. This would have been a much more significant action. If there really was antitrust behavior, but it's a lot easier to win a jury trial party to party where Epic can go to a court and say, Hey, let's go after Google. They're awful. We make Fortnite and all this sort of stuff. So they do have a bias in that sense of being able to do this.
这些人所声称的是，由于Google可以在手机上默认安装Google Play商店，这基本上是大多数消费者会使用的。所以他们说这是不公平的。而且因为他们还对操作系统有影响力，并且在其中放置了安全警告，这是不恰当的，因为现在它在吓唬人们不要从互联网上下载东西。这就是Epic所提出的重大诉求。所以Google已经表示他们将上诉这个案件，因为从根本上说，如果这是真的，而且确实存在深层次的反垄断问题，你可能会看到联邦机构对Google采取行动，而不是一个私人公司在民事案件中起诉他们。这将是一个更显著的行动，如果确实存在反垄断行为，但在陪审团的诉讼中，Epic可以去法院说，“嘿，让我们去追究Google的责任。他们是可怕的。我们制作《堡垒之夜》和这类的游戏。”所以他们在这方面确实有一种偏见和优势。
Google's going to appeal. They feel very strongly. They'll win an appeal. And the markets obviously did a, you know, voted with the fact that Google stock didn't really move anywhere. And the market said, Hey, this isn't, this is a nothing burger. Google's 40 billion in annual Play Store revenue worst case scenario. Like you said, if it gets impacted by $2 billion, that's 2 billion out of 300 overall. Doesn't really matter. And likely they're going to win on appeal anyway. So, you know, I think the saga will continue, but I think Google's got a pretty strong case on appeal and it seems like, you know, that's going to be very hard to kind of see a massive change in app store behavior as a result of this case, even though it's been hyped up to be that. That's my take on it.
谷歌将进行上诉。他们非常坚决。他们将在上诉中获胜。股市显然没有太大动荡，这也说明了市场的态度，认为这仅仅是一桩无关紧要的事情。谷歌每年400亿美元的应用商店收入，即使最糟糕的情况是受到20亿美元的影响，也只占总收入的2%。所以这并不重要，而且很可能他们最终会在上诉中获胜。所以，我认为这个事件将会继续，但我认为谷歌在上诉中有一个相当有力的立场，似乎很难因此案件发生重大的应用商店行为变化，尽管这个案件已经被炒作得很大。这就是我的看法。
Yeah. Great. Take. Chamath, what do you think about this? Jury shopping and maybe the fact that this doesn't mean a con. This isn't the FTC. It has company to company. Do you think that the claims here were valid? Do you think the jury shopping impacted this in a significant way? Probably. I guess the simple thought exercises. What do we think the outcome would have been had this trial happened in Dallas, Texas? Probably different. And so I think Freeburg is right. What does it materially prove? Nothing with respect to the body of law. It just goes to show that if you pick the right place to convene these trials in the right format, you can give yourself a slightly better probability of winning. But the question is, what will you win? It's not clear to me what happens now. Is there going to be a damages portion now of this trial? Is that what happens next? They're not seeking damages. They want changes to how they operate and they're trying to settle them and they want Google to settle out with changes to the app store policies. That's what they're asking for.
是的。太好了。把话题转移到Chamath身上，你觉得这件事怎么样？陪审团选择以及可能并不意味着欺诈行为。这不是联邦贸易委员会（FTC）。这是公司与公司之间的诉讼。你认为这里的指控是有效的吗？你认为陪审团的选择对结果产生了重大影响吗？可能会。我猜这只是一个简单的思考练习。如果这个审判发生在得克萨斯州的达拉斯市，我们认为结果会怎样？可能会不同。所以我认为Freeburg是对的。这证明了什么呢？在法律体系中并没有实质性的证据。这只是表明，如果你选择适当的地点和适当的格式来进行审判，你可能会稍微增加获胜的概率。但问题是，你将获得什么？目前对我来说还不清楚发生了什么。接下来会有赔偿部分的审判吗？他们并不寻求赔偿。他们想要改变他们的运营方式，并且试图通过解决方案与谷歌达成一致，并要求谷歌对应用商店的政策进行改变。这是他们的要求。
And then what about the Epic versus Apple lawsuit? Is it being done in the same way? No, they lost. They lost. And they appealed. And there's one element that's being appealed to the Supreme Court now, but basically they lost and that's over. And that was that convened in California in a jury trial as well in San Francisco? No, that was not a jury trial. It was a judge. And it was California. It was a bench trial in California. Yeah. It was also in Northern California. That's right. Yeah.
关于Epic对苹果公司的诉讼，又有什么情况呢？是以同样的方式进行吗？不是的，他们输了。他们输了。然后他们上诉了。现在有一个要上诉到最高法院的要素，但基本上他们输了，案子已经结束了。而且那是在加利福尼亚州召开的法官审判，而不是陪审团。在北加利福尼亚州进行的审判，没错。
So, Sax, let me bring you in on this. Do you think that these stores are monopolies and do you think if they change their behavior, especially Apple, you know, allow other third party stores, what impact that would that have on the startup ecosystem? Because the 30% tax is significant and we see that every day with our startups. I mean, if you have to give away 30% of your revenue to Google and Apple, it's brutal. And then you're advertising on Apple and Google and Facebook. That's another 30% of your revenue or 50% of your revenue. Yeah.
所以，Sax，让我告诉你这个情况。你是否认为这些商店是垄断，如果它们改变行为，尤其是苹果，例如允许其他第三方商店，那对创业生态系统会产生什么影响？因为30%的税收是相当大的，我们每天都可以看到对我们的创业企业的影响。我的意思是，如果你必须把30%的收入给谷歌和苹果，这是十分严酷的。然后你还要在苹果、谷歌和Facebook上投放广告，这又是收入的30%或者50%。是的。
No, I agree with that. So first of all, these app stores are absolutely monopolies within their ecosystem and Apple and Google Android are absolutely a duopoly within the mobile space. My experience with these types of monopolies or gatekeepers is that they exercise more and more control and extract more and more of the value over time. It's an iterative process in which they just keep, you know, extracting, keep taxing, keep, keep imposing more rules on the ecosystem for their benefit into the detriment of innovators. And so I do think they have to be controlled and I think Epic is doing the ecosystem of favor.
不，我同意这一点。首先，这些应用商店在其生态系统内绝对是垄断，并且苹果和谷歌安卓在移动领域绝对是双头垄断。我的经验是，这些类型的垄断者或守门人随着时间推移会越来越多地掌控和提取更多的价值。这是一个迭代的过程，他们不断地提取、征税，对生态系统施加更多规则，以谋求他们自身的利益，损害创新者的利益。因此，我认为他们必须受到控制，我认为 Epic 正在为生态系统做出贡献。
For example, on this 30% rake that you're talking about, Jcal, that level of rake might have been appropriate for certain types of apps, like a hobbyist app where it's literally 100% margin. Okay, you pay 30% to the app store. It doesn't work for SaaS companies. I mean, I can tell you that. I mean, this would be like half of their gross margin or something like that. It doesn't work for a lot of companies that spend a lot of money on content creation, like Epic, which spends a lot of money in R&D to create. Again, like Fortnite. Spotify. Exactly. Great.
例如，就你所提到的那个30%的佣金，Jcal，这种佣金水平可能适用于某些类型的应用，比如爱好者应用，它们可以拥有100%的利润率。好吧，你需要支付30%给应用商店。但对于SaaS公司来说就不适用了。我的意思是，我可以告诉你这点。这对于花费大量资金用于内容创作的许多公司来说就不行，比如Epic，他们在研发上投入了大量资金。比如《堡垒之夜》。Spotify也是如此。没错。太好了。
Their models immediately or Amazon with Kindle. And so what happened is it used to be the case that Amazon could have a link in their app, at least directing the user to go to the Amazon.com website and you could buy the book there and you could circumvent the rake in the app. And it was inconvenient for the user, but at least there was a way around it. Then Apple banned those links. Then they banned the ability for the app to even message to the user what was happening.
他们的模式立即与Kindle合作。所以发生的情况是，过去亚马逊的应用程序中可以有一个链接，至少引导用户去亚马逊网站购买书籍，并且可以绕过应用中的手续费。这对用户来说并不方便，但至少有一种绕过它的方式。然后，苹果禁止了这些链接。然后他们禁止应用程序甚至向用户发送消息以告知发生了什么。
So if, for example, if you use the Kindle app on iOS, which I do all the time, you can't buy a book in it. And the reason why is because Amazon doesn't want to pay the 30% rake, but they can't even tell you that. It just looks like it's broken functionality. Right. So those of us who know, go to Amazon.com through the browser and we buy the book there and then we can magically appear in the Kindle app. We've all had that experience. So I just think that these duopolies have to be controlled. I think that it'd be good if the government could figure out better ways to do it. I don't think M&A is the right way to do it. We've talked about this before. I think that restricting anti-competitive tactics is really the way to stop it. And like I said, I can't speak to the details of Epic's case, but I do think they're doing the ecosystem, a favor here by pushing back on these monopolies and helping to keep them under control.
所以，举个例子，如果你像我一样经常使用iOS上的Kindle应用，你就无法在应用内购买书籍。原因是亚马逊不想支付30%的提成，但他们甚至都不能告诉你这个原因。只是看起来好像功能出了问题一样。对了，所以我们这些知道情况的人，都会通过浏览器去亚马逊官网购买书籍，然后神奇地出现在Kindle应用中。我们都有过这种经历。所以我认为这些双头垄断必须受到控制。我认为政府有必要找出更好的方式来实现这一点。我不认为合并与收购是正确的方式，我们之前谈论过这个问题。我认为限制反竞争行为才是阻止垄断的正确途径。就像我说的，我无法对Epic的案件细节进行评论，但我认为他们通过对抗这些垄断企业，为生态系统做出了贡献，并帮助控制了它们。
A hundred percent agree with the USACs in your take. And I think actually other people should join them and the industry should really force this issue because you are absolutely correct that they're boiling the frog. Now they did make some cuts under a million. I think they charge 15% on the first million. So they try to be nice to the smaller developers. But I'll call it up. That's not, look, it's actually the larger ones to pull up the link I just said. So you'll see here Google charges through the Play Store. If you want to have distribution, I mean, think about the Play Store as being like a retailer. You make clothing, you need to have a retail store that someone can go to and buy stuff. The retail store has to make money. You're not going to have a retail store that's free. So how does the retail store make money? Well, they charge 98% of apps, as you can see here, are free because they don't make any money on that. But then if you start to charge subscriptions, it's 15% take on automatically renewing subscriptions where it's a second year. Yeah. It's easier. No, each year.
我完全同意你对美国应用开发者协会（USACs）的看法。实际上，我认为其他人应该加入他们，行业也应该真正迫使解决这个问题，因为你完全正确，他们正在渐渐加重开发者的负担。现在他们确实在一百万美元以下作出了一些减免。我想他们对于前一百万美元收取15％的费用。所以他们试图对小型开发者友好一些。但我要告诉你，这并不是...看，实际上是那些大型开发者拉起了我刚才提到的链接。你会看到谷歌通过Play商店收费。如果你想要发布应用，把Play商店看作一个零售商。你制造衣服，你需要一个零售店，让人们来购买。零售店需要盈利。你不会去一个免费的零售店。那么零售店如何盈利呢？他们通过这里可以看到，98％的应用程序是免费的，因为他们在这方面没有盈利。但是如果你开始收费订阅，那么续订订阅中的第二年他们会收取15％。是的，他们会收取这个费用，每年一次。
Look at the second. No, no, no, no. It's for renewing. So I know that's because of calm. So in the first year, it's for it's for renewing subscriptions, subscription products.
看第二个。不，不，不，不是这个。它是为了续订。所以我知道那是因为冷静。所以在第一年，它是为了续订订阅产品。
So all subscriptions that have an automatic renewal feature to them are instantly at 15%. And as a result, you know, you can think about the, what is it worth to get a user to not have to enter their credit card info, you know, plus the credit card fees. It's like 15% is not too crazy.
所以，所有具有自动续订功能的订阅服务都立即享受15%的优惠。因此，你可以考虑一下，为了让用户不必输入信用卡信息以及避免信用卡费用，这个优惠值得付出多少代价，你知道的，15%并不算太离谱。
Honestly, I'm just, you know, I'm not trying to be a super Google advocate, but I'm just saying, like, I don't think that's too crazy. And then they've got this like negotiated tier where if you are a very large app developer and you want to go and negotiate with Google, they have a biz dev team like Spotify and others get where they'll negotiate fees down.
老实说，嗯，我只是，你懂的，我不打算成为一个超级的谷歌拥护者，但我只是在说，我觉得这没那么疯狂。而且，他们还有一个协商的层级，如果你是一个非常大的应用开发者，并且想要与谷歌协商，他们有一个类似于Spotify和其他公司的商务发展团队，他们会降低费用进行协商。
And you can actually go and like argue for better economics. So they've tried to be commercial, which I'm guessing is probably why. Lina Khan and others haven't gone after them for antitrust and monopolistic behavior because they've tried to find the comfortable place where it's not going to be too crazy. At least that's my read on what's gone on. Because otherwise, I mean, obviously folks would be all over them. You know, if it really was monopolistic.
你实际上可以参与辩论，争取更好的经济政策。所以他们试图商业化，我猜这可能是为什么。莉娜·汗和其他人没有对他们进行反垄断和垄断行为的指责，因为他们试图找到一个舒适的地方，不至于过分疯狂。至少这是我对发生的情况的看法。否则，我想，显然大家都会对他们指手画脚的。如果他们真的是垄断的话。
But the boiling of the frog issue is the one for me because then they want to charge you now for placement in the app store and get revenue from you there. Oh, yeah. I mean, that's Amazon too. Amazon's got that. Like everyone's gotten squeezed.
但是，对于我来说，最令人担忧的是“烧青蛙”的问题。因为他们现在还要向你收费，让你的应用进入应用商店，并从中获取收益。哦，是的，亚马逊也是如此。亚马逊也受到了挤压，就像其他所有人一样。
Every D2C company in the last five years has gotten obliterated. Their unit economics are upside down now. And we've talked about this. Both Google's taken out the margin, but Amazon forces you to buy ads in order to get a product placement. Yeah. And then they force you to pay all the extra fees for inventory. Amazon squeezed everyone way more than any of these digital app stores.
在过去的五年中，每一家直接对消费者（D2C）的公司都遭受了重大打击。他们的单位经济状况现在完全颠倒了。我们之前谈过这个问题。谷歌削减了利润率，而亚马逊则迫使你购买广告以获得产品展示位置。是的，然后他们还强迫你支付所有额外的库存费用。相比任何一个数字应用商店，亚马逊对每个人的利润压榨更大。
This is the perfect place for Leona Khan to get active, I think. And the settlement's super easy. The entire industry should come at them in unison. Tons of lawsuits, group lawsuits until they allow when you turn on your apple phone, the ability to load Amazon's app store, Epic's app store, whoever else wants to have an app store, that should be your right. If you buy a hardware device, it should be your right to load these and they shouldn't be angled in any way.
我认为这是Leona Khan非常适合参与的理想地方。而且，解决方案非常简单。整个行业应该一致地向他们提起大量的诉讼，集体诉讼，直到他们允许你在苹果手机上加载亚马逊的应用商店、Epic的应用商店，或其他任何想要拥有应用商店的公司。如果你购买了硬件设备，你应该有权利加载这些应用商店，而且它们不应以任何方式受限制。
And that's the other thing. Android does all kinds of ankle and to make those with those pop ups and hey, this isn't safe, etc. They should have a verified app store program. Amazon's app store, Epic's app store, they should be verified or something. And maybe they pay 5% to have a verified app store. But this is a this is going to be an ongoing issue and we'll see more of it. I think. So let's go on.
这是另外一件事。安卓系统经常出现各种繁琐的弹窗和警示，比如“这不安全”等等。他们应该有一个经过验证的应用商店计划。亚马逊的应用商店，Epic的应用商店，它们应该经过验证或者类似的程序。也许他们可以支付5%的费用来获得一个验证过的应用商店。但这将是一个持续存在的问题，我们会看到更多这样的情况。我认为。所以让我们继续。
Anybody else have thoughts on it? No. OK. So in other news, OpenAI is started to cut licensing deals. If you remember, we had a big debate about this back on episode 115 in February. And I was saying, hey, this content is owned and the opportunity to create LLMs or derivative products, you know, is the right of the the people who make that content.
还有其他人对此有什么想法吗？没有吗？好的。所以在其他消息中，OpenAI开始进行许可协议的削减。如果你还记得的话，我们在2月份的第115期节目中曾进行了一场大辩论。我曾说过，嘿，这些内容是有人拥有的，创建LLM或衍生产品的机会是那些创造这些内容的人的权利。
So actually, you don't know how to get rolled over. But here we are. I wouldn't say I said you're going to get rolled over. What I said is the ecosystem is going to figure this out. OK, let's play the tape. If chat TPT takes a Yelp review and a, you know, a Conde Nast traveler review and they represent it based on the best content.
事实上，你并不知道如何被滚动处理。但我们现在就在这里。我并不是说你将会被滚动处理。我说的是生态系统将会解决这个问题。好的，我们来看看录音。如果聊天TPT将Yelp的评论和《康泰纳什旅行家》的评论结合起来，并基于最佳内容进行展示。
And I was out that's out there that they've already ranked because they have that algorithm with page rank or Bing's ranking engine. And then they republish it. And then that jeopardizes those businesses that is profoundly unfair and not what we want for society. And they are interfering with their ability to leverage their own content is profoundly unfair.
而且，我指的是那些已经通过页面排名算法或必应排名引擎进行了排名的内容。然后他们重新发布这些内容。这样做不仅对那些企业构成了威胁，而且极不公平，违背了我们对社会的期望。他们这样做干扰了企业运用自己内容的能力，也是非常不公平的。
And those magazines and newspapers need to. What's that? You're getting steam rolled. OK, there it is. Man, is my hair worse now or then? Yeah, I think it's bad cut back then. I think you were like post COVID back then. Yeah, I'm thinking a little too much better right now. Like a toupee. Nick, can you can you just show us a picture of that? It looks like you get a par on the common era. That was like a like an early AD. This is like the common era now. You know, that's a toupee. That's a toupee.
那些杂志和报纸需要做些什么？这是什么意思？你正在被碾压。好了，就是这样。天哪，现在我的头发是更差了还是以前？是的，我觉得那时候剪得不好。我觉得你以前可能是新冠后期。是的，我现在想得太多了。像个假发一样。尼克，你能给我们看个照片吗？那看起来就像是公元纪年。就像是早期的公元纪年。现在是普通纪年。你知道的，那是假发。那是个假发。
It does look like a two. It looks like a raccoon. OK, J. Kale, I'll get some comments on this because I think your fluffer has as fluffed too much on the upper parts and and unfluffed the bottom parts, which I think I mean, listen, don't criticize him when he was in it in between phase. We all go through an in between phase with our hair. It's it's part of the process.
看起来确实像个二。看起来像只浣熊。好吧，J. Kale，我会在这个问题上收集一些意见，因为我认为你的发型师在上部分过于蓬松，下部分则没蓬松好，我是说，听着，当他处于中间阶段时不要批评他。我们所有人的头发都会经历一个中间阶段，这是过程的一部分。
Now I know what we're talking about this topic, J Kales, because you think you it's it's a total non-story or it's I shouldn't say it's a non-story. OK, let me let me let me face it off. So just so we know what's going on here.
现在我知道我们在谈论这个话题，J Kales，因为你认为这完全是个无关紧要的故事，或者说我应该说这不是无关紧要的故事。好的，让我来面对它吧。这样我们就知道发生了什么。
Open AI announced a licensing deal with Axel Springer to bring real-time news from Politico and the fake news from Business Insider to Chappie to T. You literally sound like Alex Jones. I mean, thank you. Thank you for playing all your news. That is actually right about that.
Open AI宣布与Axel Springer达成许可协议，将来自Politico的实时新闻和来自Business Insider的虚假新闻带到Chappie to T中。你简直听起来像亚历克斯·琼斯。我的意思是，谢谢你。谢谢你播放所有的新闻。那的确相当正确。
I got one thing. Right. That's part of the deal.
我明白了一件事。没错，那是交易的一部分。
Axel Springer can use chat GPT to improve their products, includes other European sites. This is on top of the deal that Open AI did with the Associated Press.
Axel Springer可以利用Chat GPT来改进他们的产品，包括其他欧洲站点。这是OpenAI与美联社达成的交易之外的一个重要合作。
But most importantly, let me just most importantly, I'm going to throw it in a second. Most importantly, when chat GPT relies on these sources, it'll include a summary and a link back.
但更重要的是，让我来说一下最重要的事情，我将在下一秒解释清楚。最重要的是，当ChatGPT根据这些来源进行聊天时，它将包含一份摘要和链接返回。
Other examples of licensing are happening all over the industry. Adobe is using staff images for theirs and stable diffusion. As you know, that brazenly used Getty's images are being sued.
行业中正在发生许可的其他例子。Adobe正在使用员工图像进行其稳定的传播。正如您所知，那些公然使用了Getty图像的公司正在被起诉。
So, FreeBerg, you thought this was unrealistic, but here we are.
所以，FreeBerg，你认为这是不切实际的，但是现在我们就在这里了。
No, I don't agree with your framing. And I think that I think it's unrealistic for you to frame this as validating or justifying the fact that these companies won't be able to access and utilize open data under fair use to train models.
不，我不同意你的设定。而且我认为，你将这种情况描绘成验证或证明这些公司无法利用公开数据进行公平使用来训练模型是不现实的。
So that's what's going on historically, right? So the open web, you know, we talked a little bit about where folks can get content from the open web. You can browse the internet and you can download all this content. It's all freely available. It's readily available. It's in it's in the open domain. And then you can train models and then the models can ultimately make stuff based on all that training data.
这就是历史上发生的事情，对吧？所以开放网络，你知道，我们稍微谈到了人们可以从开放网络获取内容的地方。你可以浏览互联网，下载所有这些内容。它们都是免费提供的，随时可得。它们属于开放领域。然后你可以训练模型，然后这些模型最终可以基于所有的训练数据生成东西。
What this deal is is it's actually a content integration deal. And I'll read this with the partnership, chat GPT users around the world will receive summaries of selected global news content from Axel Springer's media brands, including Yada Yada, including otherwise paid content.
这个交易实际上是一项内容整合协议。通俗地讲，Chat GPT的用户将得到来自Axel Springer媒体品牌的全球新闻内容摘要，包括Yada Yada在内，甚至包括原本需要付费的内容。
So what chat GPT is doing is they're accessing content behind a paywall. And they'll be able and instead of training models on it, they're able to fetch that data as a retrieval aspect of the chat GPT service.
所以GPT chat做的是访问付费墙后的内容。而且他们能够获取这些数据作为chat GPT服务的检索方面，而不是用它来训练模型。
So now you as a user want an update on, hey, what's going on with Donald Trump? It can search not just, it can not just use its training data, but it can recognize that, hey, there's a current event news question embedded in this query. And I can go fetch that current event news answer from this content that I've now paid for.
所以现在，作为用户的你想要一个关于特朗普的更新，对吧？它不仅可以搜索使用它的训练数据，还可以识别出这个问题中嵌入的当前事件新闻问题。然后我可以从我现在付费获取的内容中提取出相关的当前事件新闻答案。
So it's not a training data set that that's now being unlocked, which is what the complaint was before that all the open web data was being used for training, but it's behind paywall data that can now be fetch and integrated.
所以现在被解锁的不是一个训练数据集，之前的抱怨是所有的开放网络数据都被用于训练，而是可以现在获取并整合的收费网络数据。
And I think it's more interesting because it really speaks to a new model for how the internet will work, which we've talked about, which is that there may be these sort of new chat interfaces that cannot just send you to another page and link you over somewhere, but can fetch data for you and present it to you in an integrated way in the response it's providing. And these services have to pay for access to that.
我认为这更有趣，因为它实际上揭示了互联网运作的新模式，我们之前讨论过这一点，即可能存在这种新的聊天界面，它不仅可以将你引导到另一个页面并链接到其他地方，还可以为你获取数据并以综合的方式在提供应答时呈现给你。而这些服务商必须付费才能获得这种访问权限。
So open AI, it's a three-year deal. They're paying tens of millions of dollars to Axel Springer to access their closed content and present it to the user. I think it's quite a bit different than using training data, which is what the complaint was the first time around. And it's more of like a really interesting front-end feature for what chat GPT is becoming.
所以，Open AI签下了一份为期三年的合约。他们向Axel Springer支付了数千万美元，以获取其封闭内容并呈现给用户。我认为这与使用训练数据完全不同，这也是第一次提出的投诉。这更像是一个非常有趣的前端功能，用于Chat GPT的发展。
So actually wanted to add to that. And I don't really have a lot to add to that. I think if you were to do a great job explaining that issue, I mean, look, I think J Cal, you've had a little bit of a session with this copyright issue.
实际上我想要补充一点。我没有太多要补充的东西。我认为如果你能很好地解释这个问题，我觉得J Cal，你已经对版权问题进行了一小段时间的探讨了。
Well, protecting protecting rights holders, I do believe in. I don't know if it's actually free, but it makes a really great point, which is there's a difference between copying somebody's copyrighted work, which would be a violation of the copyright, and using content that's available on the open web to train a model to create entirely new content.
嗯，保护权利持有人的权益，我是相信的。我不知道这是否真的是免费的，但它有一个非常重要的观点，即复制他人的受版权保护作品与利用开放网络上的内容训练模型以创作全新内容是有区别的。
And I do think that AI models should be able to use the content that's available on the web under a fair use doctrine to train their models for the benefit of consumers. And I don't see a reason to try and tie that up in a bunch of copyright lawsuits.
我认为，AI模型应该能够根据公平使用原则使用网络上可用的内容来训练模型，以造福消费者。我并不认为有必要将这个问题牵涉进一系列的版权诉讼中。
If chat GPT is producing a plagiarized result, then you may have grounds for a copyright infringement claim. So what I would say is, you know, when you look at that fair use doctrine, I've got a lot of experience with it. Having done this in blogs and other content companies, you know, the fourth factor test, I'm sure you're well aware of this, is the effect of the use on the potential market and the value of the work.
如果Chat GPT生成了抄袭的结果，那么你可能有理由提出侵犯版权的索赔。所以我要说的是，你知道，当你看待公平使用原则时，我在这方面有很多经验。在博客和其他内容公司做过这种事情，你应该很清楚，第四个因素测试是使用对潜在市场和作品价值的影响。
And if you look at the lawsuits that are starting to emerge, it is Getty's right to then make derivative products based on their images. I think we would all agree stable diffusion when they use these open web, that is no excuse to use an open web crawler to avoid getting a license from the original owner of that. Just because you can technically do it doesn't mean you're allowed to do it. In fact, the open web projects that provide these say explicitly, we do not give you the right to use this. You have to then go read the copyright laws on each of those websites. And on top of that, if somebody were to steal the copyrights of other people, put it on the open web, which is happening all day long, you still, if you're building a derivative work like this, you still need to go get it. So it's no excuse that I took some site in Russia that did a bunch of copyright violation and then I index them for my training model. So I think this is going to result.
如果你看一下开始出现的诉讼，可以看出盖蒂有权根据他们的图片制作衍生产品。我想我们都会同意当他们使用这些开放网络时是稳定的传播方式，这并不是避免从原始所有者那里获取许可的借口。仅仅因为你技术上能够做到并不意味着你被允许这样做。事实上，提供这些的开放网络项目明确表示，我们不授权你使用这些内容。你必须阅读每个网站上的版权法。此外，如果有人窃取他人的版权并将其放在开放网络上，这种情况每天都在发生，如果你要构建这样的衍生作品，你仍然需要去获取许可。所以，我认为这将导致一个结果。
Hey, Bert. Yeah. Bert, can you shoot me in the face and let me know in the segment. OK. All right. So the segment is now over. I was about to throw it to you. Couldn't work. I mean, like stop with this naval gazing nonsense. We're in inning one and nobody knows anything. And the most important thing is that this will get sorted out through trials. That's where you were right, Jason. It's going to go to court. And it's, and I think we should just not opine on this stuff because it's esoteric at best. And it's kind of like whatever.
嘿，伯特。是的。伯特，你能开枪打我脸上然后让我在这一段知道吗？好的。好吧。所以这一节目现在结束了。我正要把话题转向你。没法工作。我是说，别再纠结这些琐事了。我们才刚开始，没有人知道任何事情。最重要的是，这将通过审判解决。在这一点上你是对的，杰森。这将要上法院。而且，我认为我们不应该对这些事情发表意见，因为这最多只是深奥的理论性问题。有点随便而已。
Well, some of it will go to court. Other ones will be done in the free market like we see here. Another thing I care about this more than most people because you are a journalist and you think this is going to put people out of work. I am a content creator. I'm also an author, as you know, and a podcaster and they create all kinds of content. I do think that you should get permission before you leverage people's work to create different derivative products. Correct. And actually you're starting to see this in Dolly and chat GPT seems to be getting ahead of this because of all the incoming lawsuits.
好的，其中一些将会进入法庭。其他的将在自由市场中完成，就像我们在这里看到的一样。还有一件事，我比大多数人更关心这个问题，因为你是一名记者，你认为这将导致人们失业。我是一个内容创作者。正如你所知，我还是一名作者和播客，我创造各种各样的内容。我确实认为，在利用他人作品创作不同的衍生产品之前，你应该获得许可。是的，实际上，由于涉及的诉讼众多，你开始看到Dolly和chat GPT似乎在解决这个问题上领先于其他人。
Check this out. I started asking Dolly to make me Star Wars characters of Bulldogs. And I said, make a Jedi Bulldog. It did that. No problem. Then I asked it to make a version of this using and make a Darth Vader. And it said, I'm unable to generate images based on your request due to our content policy. If you have other ideas and concepts, you'd like to feel free to share. So I said, make me a simple or cat and it basically made me Darth Vader. And so it's very clear that the team over at OpenAI is now taking a proper engineering. You're like a clever prompt engineer. Then well, yeah, I got a round copy right here, right? And so it's very clear. It's how silly like all of this stuff is. This is just a drag coefficient on development of AI because and on users, because now you've got to like word, you're prompt exactly the right way.
看看这个。我开始要求Dolly给我制作斗牛犬版的《星球大战》角色。我说，做一个绝地武士斗牛犬。它做到了，毫无问题。然后我让它用制作达斯·维达的方式制作一个版本。它说，由于我们的内容政策，我无法根据你的要求生成图像。如果你有其他想法和概念，欢迎分享。所以我说，给我做一个简单的猫，然后它基本上给我做了达斯·维达。可以很明显地看出，OpenAI团队正在进行适当的工程改进。你就像一个聪明的提示工程师。嗯，我这里就有一份完整的拷贝。所以很明显，这一切都是多么的愚蠢。这只是对AI发展和用户的阻尼系数，因为现在你必须准确地用适当的方式表达你的提示。
Well, I think what they're doing is they know that Marvel and all the Disney characters, all the Star Wars characters, they're very protective of their IP. Disney is going to launch their own Dolly type stable diffusion product where you can do this, put yourself on a Star, make a Star Wars character. It's not going to be any good at this. It doesn't matter if they're good or not. It's their IP. And so I mean, fans can create their own artwork that's in the vein of like a Darth Vader image. They can, but they can't do it commercially. And what chat JPT and OpenAI here is commercial because I pay 20 bottles a month. The chat JPT. So that's what you're missing. A fan, of course, can make a Jedi cat.
嗯，我认为他们现在的做法是因为他们知道漫威和所有迪士尼角色、所有星球大战角色的知识产权（IP）非常受保护。迪士尼将要推出自己的Dolly类型的稳定扩散产品，你可以在上面将自己变成星球大战角色。这可能不会很好，好不好并不重要，因为这是他们的知识产权。所以，我是说，粉丝们可以创作自己喜欢的像达斯·维德那样的艺术品，他们可以这样做，但是不能进行商业用途。而我在这里和JPT和OpenAI的交流是商业行为，因为我每月付20美元给Chat JPT。这就是你所遗漏的。当然，粉丝可以制作出一个绝地猫。
Well, all I know is you played this like way back video from episode. 15 or something. No, no, no, no, it was in the. OK, from episode one, 15, as if you. I know you guys never want to think I'm right. It turns out that Freeburg totally blew up your case. He didn't blow my case. I will be right and continue to be right. OK, now let's go to something we can. We're definitely not striking the segment. I liked it. Let's go. No, no, no, no, it's spicy. We like a little spicy here. I didn't even have to refute you. Freeburg just did it. Well, beautiful. Now I mean, listen, OK, you came in. You thought you had the goods. Admit it. No, he's like playing this way back video from like 45 episodes ago. I finally got him. I finally got some. I was finally right about something. You hadn't claimed you never used the right steam roll. I would have never played the club.
嗯，我知道的只是你播放了这个好像是从第15集开始的旧视频。不，不，不，不，它是在第一集的时候。好吧，就像你们从来都不想承认我是对的一样，结果发现Freeburg完全摧毁了你的案子。他没有毁了我的案子。我是对的，而且将继续是对的。好了，现在让我们谈谈我们可以继续的内容吧。我们肯定不会删除这一部分。我喜欢它。来吧，继续。不，不，不，这样才有趣。我们喜欢有点刺激的东西。我甚至都不需要反驳你。Freeburg已经做到了。很好。现在，听着，好吗，你进来了。你以为你有证据。承认吧。不，他正在播放一个大约45集之前的老视频。我终于抓住他了。我终于成功了一次。你从来都没有声称过你从未使用过计策。我永远不会打球会。
Oh, my God. I have some live footage. I just want to go through it and just talk about it. I strike it. Anyways, yeah. So guys, there's this copyright thing. I want to OK, hold on. Let me let me just refrain. Let me just start that again. OK, you know, copyright issues are OK. Wait, hold on. Well, listen, there's this thing I want to talk about. Copyright, which hold on. What are you doing? Oh, these are just two of those guys. Those guys in the NBA last year. When you do a deal for OK, hold on. OK, you write something and you want to get OK. Hold on. Hold on. Everybody that writes gets a chance. OK, hold on. I mean, if I could get up that high, I would miss the dunk. It's OK. Listen, you can't just say. He's he's about to steamroll. Thank you. I strike. Let's keep it. OK, let's try everything. You can get everything. Come on. J Cal, you teed up the way back of yourself. You teed up the way back clip of yourself. So you brought the whole night and I just you brought this on yourself. Yeah, but you try to dunk and it didn't work. OK, OK, OK, every bit has to take the piss out of me. I'm seeing a trend. OK, no, don't. Don't breath the way that flips unless you have a clean dunk. All right, here we go. Don't bring it to the hoop and then break it. Break it. Break it. He had a receipt. It turned out the credit card was stolen. OK, here we go. It's pretty good. All right, here we go. You know who actually deserves credit for admitting that he was wrong? Oh, we'll get to. We'll get to you. Get your flop. OK, transition to a calendar. It needs coming. Here we go. Great transition. Great transition. Transition. Here we go.
哦，我的天。我有一些现场录像。我只是想浏览一下然后谈论一下。我抓住了这个。不管怎样，是的。所以，伙计们，有一个版权的问题。我想，OK，等一下。让我先让我先忍住。让我从头开始。OK，你知道，版权问题还好。等等，听着，有件事我想谈一谈。版权，对，等一下。你在做什么？哦，这些只是去年那些NBA的家伙。当你做一桩交易的时候，OK，等一下。好的，你写点东西然后要得到OK。等一下。等一下。每个写的人都有机会。OK，等一下。我是说，如果我能跳得那么高，我就会扣篮不中。没关系。听着，你不能随便说。他要把你碾压。谢谢。我抓住了。我们继续。OK，让我们试试所有的。你可以得到一切。来吧，J Cal，你把你自己的后路抖开了。你把整个晚上都带来了，我只是...你自讨苦吃。是的，但你想扣篮却没有成功。好，好，好，每个人都要拿我开涮。我看到一个趋势。好吧，别把手翻过来，除非你能做出干净的扣篮。好，我们开始。别到篮筐那里然后弄坏它。弄坏它。弄坏它。他拿到了收据，结果信用卡是盗的。好的，我们开始。很不错。好的，我们开始。你知道，谁实际上应该得到赞誉，因为他承认自己错了吗？哦，我们会的。我们会的。准备好扑街吧。好了，过渡到一个日历。大家准备好了吗？过渡的非常好。过渡。开始吧。
Elon versus the FCC. Another government agency is now targeting Elon. This is a little bit complicated, but let me explain. On Tuesday, the FCC rejected Starlink's application for 900 million in subsidies for rural broadband. Starlink originally won these back in 2020 when they agreed to provide high-speed internet to 640,000 rural homes across 35 states. Funding would have come from the RDOF Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. I guess the government is paying for expanding broadband. There's not any broadband services in rural areas. And Starlink, obviously, it's perfect for that. It's actually the only solution for this, really. You can't run fiber to these locations. So the FCC found that Starlink, quote, had failed to meet its burden to be entitled to those funds. And here's the quote. FCC has a responsibility to be a good steward of limited public funds meant to expand access to rural broadband, not fund applicants that failed to meet basic program requirements.
埃隆对决联邦通信委员会(FCC)。现在又有另一个政府机构针对埃隆进行了攻击。这有点复杂，不过让我解释一下。周二，FCC拒绝了Starlink申请9亿美元用于农村宽带补贴的申请。Starlink最早是在2020年赢得了这些补贴，当时他们同意为35个州的64万农村家庭提供高速互联网服务。这些资金原本应该来自RDOF（农村数字机遇基金）的资金。我猜政府是为了拓展宽带而支付的。农村地区没有任何宽带服务。而Starlink显然非常适合这一点。实际上，这是唯一的解决方案。你无法在这些地区铺设光纤。所以FCC发现Starlink“未能履行其应得的资金义务”。这是FCC的一则声明：“FCC有责任做好有限公共资金的良好管理，扩大农村宽带的覆盖范围，而不是资助未能满足基本项目要求的申请人。”
And in Carr, one of the FCC's commissioners dissented from the agency's decision, and he did not hold back last year, so to quote, after Elon acquired Twitter, President Biden gave federal agencies a green light to go after him. Today's decision certainly fits the Biden administration's pattern of regulatory harassment. This is a decision that cannot be explained by any objective application of law, facts, or policy.
在Carr中，美国联邦通信委员会的一位委员对该机构的决定表示异议，并在去年没有保持退缩，因此引用他的话说：在埃隆收购推特之后，拜登总统向联邦机构发出了追捕他的明确信号。今天的决定无疑符合拜登政府对规章制度的骚扰模式。这是一个无法通过任何客观的法律、事实或政策解释的决定。
Carr went on to explain how his decision was made and why it's unprecedented instead of applying nutritional FCC standards to the record evidence, which would have compelled the agency to confirm Starlink's $885 million award. The FCC denied it on the grounds that Starlink is not providing high-speed internet service to all these locations today.
卡尔进一步解释了他做出决定的方式以及为什么这个决定是前所未有的，他没有按照营养FCC标准来评估证据，而是采用了不同的方式。这一决定本应迫使机构确认Starlink获得8.85亿美元的拨款。然而，FCC以Starlink现今未能向所有地点提供高速互联网服务为由，拒绝了该拨款申请。
As noted, the FCC's milestone does not kick in until 2025. Let me toss to you, SAC's thoughts on the Biden hit squad going after E. I mean, I can't remember anything quite like this. This is absolutely extraordinary. I mean, you have a sitting member of the FCC telling us that the FCC is engaging in political retaliation.
正如所提到的，FCC的里程碑直到2025年才开始生效。我想听听你对拜登的打击团队对E展开调查的看法，SAC。我的意思是，我记不起来有什么事情比这更离奇了。这绝对是非同寻常的。我的意思是，你有一个担任FCC成员对我们说FCC正进行政治报复。
He sits on the board of the five commissioners of the FCC. They just canceled an $885 million contract to Starlink. What was that contract for to provide rural internet service? Starlink is the only company that has that capability today. It's the only one that has that capability if you look forward a few years. It is by far the best at providing broadband from space, which is the best way to get into these rural areas.
他是美国联邦通信委员会五位委员会成员之一。他们刚刚取消了一份价值8.85亿美元的与Starlink的合约。那份合约是用来提供农村互联网服务的。今天，只有Starlink拥有这种能力。如果向未来几年看，也只有Starlink具备这种能力。它在提供从空间传输宽带方面无疑是最好的，这是进入这些农村地区的最佳途径。
What did the commission do? They cherry-picked. They took speed test snapshots from two cherry-picked moments in time. Even that probably was not an accurate reflection of where Starlink is today. They then said based on those snapshots that Starlink would not be able to meet the standards in three years. Remember, the requirements that they're saying that Starlink violated don't even have to be met for three years. Somehow they're saying that Starlink will not get through in three years. They're preemptively judging the service to meet a standard that is not even required to meet today. Nobody else is even close to meeting the standard.
这个委员会做了什么？他们是选择性挑选的。他们从两个特定时间点选取了测速快照。即使那样可能并不准确地反映了Starlink如今的情况。然后他们根据这些快照声称Starlink三年内无法达到标准。请记住，他们声称Starlink违反的要求在三年内都不必满足。不知怎么的，他们预先评判了该服务，要求其达到现在根本不需要满足的标准。其他人甚至都没有接近满足这个标准。
Elon's response to this was, guys, if you're going to cancel the contract for us, just save the money because the competitors that you're giving it to have even less of a service than we do. Just save the taxpayer the money, but they're not doing that. This is really remarkable.
埃隆对此的回应是，诸位，如果你们要为我们取消合同，那就把这笔钱省下来，因为你们给予的竞争对手比我们的服务还要差。就让纳税人省点钱吧，可他们却没有这么做。这真的很令人惊讶。
Carr said here is that the Biden administration is choosing to prioritize as political and ideological goals at the expense of connecting Americans. We can't should reverse course. This is now part of a pattern of the federal government harassing Elon and his companies.
卡尔表示拜登政府选择将政治和意识形态的目标放在与美国人民的联系之上，这对于我们来说是不可取的。我们应该改变这种做法。这已经成为联邦政府骚扰埃隆和他的公司的一个典型案例。
It all stems from Biden at that press conference saying, we've got to look at this guy. Like Tony Soprano, yeah, we've got to look at this guy. It was like. And so since. That's a nice restaurant. You got to be terrible if anything ever happened to it. Yeah, Jake, you do the impression. I can't do it. Any event.
这一切源于拜登在那场新闻发布会上说了一句话，我们必须看看这个人。就像托尼·索普拉诺一样，是的，我们必须看看这个人。就像...所以，从那时起，就开始了。这是一家很棒的餐厅。如果有什么意外发生，那肯定很糟糕。是的，杰克，你来模仿吧。我不会。总之。
So Biden says in this press conference, we've got to look at this guy. And since then, they've investigated Tesla for supposedly building a glass house, which I didn't know was a crime. That's amazing. Yeah. SpaceX, which is partially a defense contractor, was sued by the DOJ because they were hiring too many Americans and didn't. They weren't hiring enough refugees into sensitive national security roles that they would surely be sued for doing it the other way.
拜登在这次新闻发布会上说，我们必须关注这个人。从那时起，他们调查了特斯拉，声称其建造了一座玻璃屋，我不知道这是犯罪行为。真是令人惊讶。是的，SpaceX作为部分国防承包商，因为雇佣太多美国人而被司法部起诉，而他们并没有雇佣足够多的难民担任敏感国家安全职务，这样做肯定会被起诉。
And now they've canceled a contract for SpaceX, having the best service in the space, but somehow missing a goal that they're not required to meet for three years. This is harassment. It's transparent.
现在他们取消了与SpaceX的合同，虽然后者提供了最好的太空服务，但却因某种原因未能实现一个在三年内无需达成的目标。这是一种骚扰行为。这种行为是透明的。
And the question I have is, do we want to live in a country where the government can engage in this kind of naked political retaliation against its critics? And I have to say, there was a time in America where Nixon was roundly attacked for having this quote unquote enemies list, where supposedly he had made a list of smaller enemies and the IRS was auditing them. We are so far beyond that point and the media isn't interested at all. And no one's really interested unless you like what Elon's doing. But if you're on the opposite side of the political spectrum, as Elon, you don't care.
我要问的问题是，我们是否想要生活在一个政府可以对其批评者进行这种赤裸裸的政治报复的国家？我必须说，在美国曾经有一段时期，尼克松因对所谓的敌人名单遭到猛烈抨击，据说他列出了一张小敌人的名单，让税务局对他们进行审计。我们现在已经远远超出了那个点，而媒体对此完全不感兴趣。除非你喜欢埃隆正在做的事情，否则没有人真的感兴趣。但如果你与埃隆站在政治谱系的对立面，你是不会在乎的。
And there's nobody who's willing to say in a neutral way that political retaliation should not be part of our system. I mean, we have a presidential candidate running specifically saying, I am your retribution. I mean, this is something that has to stop across all of politics.
而且没有人愿意以中立的方式说政治报复不应该成为我们体制的一部分。我的意思是，我们有一位总统候选人明确表示，我是你的报复。我是说，这是所有政治中都必须停止的事情。
Nobody should be using their political power to do any retribution against anybody. They should be operating the government efficiently and the best interests of all Americans should not. So maybe I don't like that rhetoric from Trump. I don't think it's helpful. But what did Trump ever do? That's in this league. I mean, everything they accused Trump of doing, the fascism, the retribution, all that kind of stuff seems to me the Biden administration is doing here.
没有人应该利用他们的政治权力对任何人进行报复。他们应该高效运作政府，并为所有美国人的最大利益服务。所以也许我不喜欢特朗普的言论。我认为这对解决问题没有帮助。但特朗普到底做过什么？在这方面他和拜登政府相比呢？我是说，他们指责特朗普做的一切，法西斯主义、报复等等，这些事情在拜登政府这里看起来都在发生。
Yeah. Well, I mean, he says he's going to do it. He says the first thing he's going to do is go after journalists and do you think Trump did no retribution when he was in office? I mean, we have to look through every single issue. You can't do one. It's interesting. One doesn't come off the top. I had I'm trying to remember if he ever said, I'm going to go after this person or that person. I don't remember an instance of him saying he said lock or up. That was any never did it. Trump was all talk in this respect. He didn't actually do it.
是的。嗯，我的意思是，他说他要这样做。他说他首先要做的事情就是追究记者的责任，你觉得特朗普在任期内没有进行报复吗？我的意思是，我们必须看清楚每一个问题。你不能只看一件事。有趣的是，并不是所有问题都是显而易见的。我在努力回忆他是否曾经说过，我要针对这个人或者那个人追究责任。我不记得他说过这样的话，他只是说了堵上或者拘禁的话。他从未真正去做。特朗普在这方面只是说而已，并没有实际行动。
Yes. This is what Peter Thiel said. Like, you know, his great quote about him. Like just look at his actions. Not what he says. He say burrabbles and he says he's going to do retribution against everybody, but you know, and then he doesn't. So, even talking about Trump in this context is a deflection to a cow. The action is being taken by the Biden administration. They've now weaponized multiple federal agencies to go after Elon on these cases that seem transparently trumped up a glass house, not hiring enough refugees to national security roles. It's obviously a contract for the for Starlink, which is by far the best rule internet service. How do you even justify these cases on their I'm not just a hundred percent. I'm in a hundred percent agreement.
是的，这就是彼得·泰尔所说的。就像你知道的，他关于自己的伟大名言。看看他的行动，而不是他的言辞。他说一些琐事，说他要对每个人进行报复，但是你知道，他并没有这样做。因此，即使在这种情况下谈论特朗普也是一种转移注意力的手段。行动是拜登政府正在采取的。他们现在动用了多个联邦机构来针对埃隆在这些明显捏造的案件上采取行动，比如在国家安全岗位上没有雇佣足够的难民。这显然是对Starlink的合同抱有偏见，而Starlink无疑是最好的农村互联网服务。你如何解释这些案件？我不仅百分之百同意，而且百分之百赞同。
You think there's this is politically motivated harassment of Elon by the Biden administration. A hundred percent. He said it. And he didn't invite him to the Eevee summit. So you just take Biden at his actions. If you don't invite, if you don't invite Elon to the Eevee summit, it's obvious that he's got it in for this guy. And now it's obvious he's told people to, you know, investigate him and harass him. It's obvious. So why do you think they don't like him? Why do you think Biden doesn't like him? Why doesn't Biden like him? Because he's nonunion. It's obvious. That's that's the beginning and end of it. I mean, I'm sure the freedom of speech things and, you know, Twitter doesn't help, but this predates Biden is a union guy and he will not have nonunion people. He will not support nine union people. He is bought and sold by the unions. That's a hundred percent. And you want to said that.
你认为这是拜登政府对埃隆进行的政治动机骚扰。百分之百。他自己说的。而且他没有邀请埃隆参加电动车峰会。所以你可以根据拜登的行动来判断。如果你不邀请埃隆参加电动车峰会，很明显他对这个家伙不满。而且现在很明显他已经告诉人们去调查他、骚扰他。这一点显而易见。那么你为什么认为他们不喜欢他？你为什么认为拜登不喜欢他？为什么拜登不喜欢他？因为他不是工会成员。这一点显而易见。那是问题的开始和结束。我的意思是，我确定言论自由的问题和推特并没有帮助，但这早就先于拜登而存在，他是个工会人，他不会支持非工会成员。他已经被工会买通了。百分之百。而且你也这么说过。
That may be how it started, but I think you're underrating the free speech aspect. Oh, I said it could have to do with that, but it's definitely that's the number one issue. And more importantly, you're saying enabling dissenting voices, strongly dissenting. Absolutely. I think I think that from the get go, they have sought to exercise control over the Twitter, formerly Twitter now X platform, because it is the town square for political speech. They succeeded the FBI. Everybody had total control of it until Elon somehow bought the company, which was not in their plans. Frankly, that was just a fluke. I mean, that was something that Elon did out of the blue because he cares a lot about free speech. And he opened up the Twitter jails and, you know, stop the censorship and open up the Twitter files. We found out that this was not just a private company acting on its own. It was being directed or encouraged by giving a list of tweets. They were giving them a list of tweets saying, Hey, these tweets probably are the terms of service. Yeah. You know, and the FBI acting as the quote unquote belly button of the whole federal government directing all these takedown requests totally on America.
这可能是它开始的方式，但我认为你低估了言论自由的方面。哦，我说这可能与此有关，但它肯定是头等大事。更重要的是，你说要让不同的声音发出，强烈的不同意见。绝对的。我认为从一开始，他们就试图控制Twitter，现在是X平台，因为它是政治言论的市政广场。他们成功了，FBI也是如此。每个人都完全控制它，直到埃隆不知何故收购了这家公司，这不在他们的计划中。坦率地说，那只是个巧合。这是埃隆出于对言论自由的关心做的一件事，他打开了Twitter的监狱，停止了审查并公开了Twitter的文件。我们发现这不仅仅是一个私人公司在独立行动，它是被指导或鼓励的，他们会给他们一份推文清单。他们给他们一份推文清单，说，“嘿，这些推文可能涉及到服务条款。”是的，你知道的，FBI充当了整个联邦政府的肚脐眼，指导所有这些撤回请求，完全是针对美国的。
I think that the pattern of actions, more than anything, mandates that Biden and his team actually have to address publicly why it is not retribution. The absolute doing that, the absence of doing that at this point is going to be more damaging to them than just letting things go on and claiming down the road. Hey, this is all part of the normal course of business. Now the guy does what, why, why, why would they address it? Why do they have to address the media? Does it hold them accountable? The media doesn't report it. The media pretended like the Twitter files and everyone happened. Remember that zero mainstream media coverage of the Twitter files. Zero mainstream media coverage of these retaliatory lawsuits. Why would that Biden administration need to explain itself? Why would they even talk about it? The fix is in.
我认为，与任何其他因素相比，行动的模式要求拜登和他的团队必须公开解释为什么这不是报复。目前不采取绝对的行动，不解释这一点对他们来说会比让事情继续下去并声称这是正常业务的一部分更具破坏性。现在这个人做什么事情，为什么，他们为什么要解释呢？他们为什么要对媒体负责？媒体没有报道。媒体假装推特的文件和一切都没有发生过。还记得主流媒体对推特文件的零报道吗？主流媒体对这些报复性诉讼的零报道。为什么拜登政府需要解释自己？他们为什么要谈论这个？一切都已安排好了。
Well, I mean, now the question is being, I think the main three media are stenographers for one side of the political spectrum, which is precisely the reason. Did you guys see this thing? It's precisely the reason why they're so upset with Elon with opening up free speech on Twitter, because they had total control of the public discourse until he did that.
嗯，我的意思是，现在的问题是，我认为主要的三家媒体都是某一政治派别的记录员，这正是原因所在。你们有看到这个吗？这正是他们对埃隆在推特上开放言论自由感到不满的原因，因为在他之前，他们完全控制着公众的言论空间。
Did you see that thing this morning where somebody called out the New York Times for selectively editing what Hunter Biden said to make it more broad? Broad? Did you see that, Jason? Yeah, he basically said, my father has not financially been involved in my businesses. And the New York Times took out the word financially to make it more broad to say he's not been involved in my business.
你有没有看到今天早上的那个事情？有人指责纽约时报对亨特·拜登的言论进行选择性编辑，使其更加泛化。泛化？杰森，你看到那个了吗？是的，他基本上说，我父亲在我的企业方面没有财务上的参与。然而，《纽约时报》删去了"财务上"这个词，使之变得更加泛化，称他在我的企业中没有参与。
Oh, wow. He was involved in his business. Really? Yeah. And then there's a clip where they show the article and they show and then they show his interview and the interview is very clear. He says it, but the New York Times headline amidst the word and doesn't put it in a bracket so that it shows that it was edited. It shows that that was the quote.
哦，哇。他参与了自己的业务。真的吗？是的。然后有一个视频片段，他们展示了文章，并展示了他的采访，采访非常清晰。他说了这句话，但《纽约时报》的标题在这句话中间加了一个词却没有标记出来，以显示被编辑的部分。它表明这是他的引用。
Can you pull it off? You have that thing? Yeah. It's so crazy. Let me find it. That's crazy. I mean, I would like to think there's a possibility. This was a mistake, but man, it's pretty bad. I mean, this is really bad by the New York Times. And they got to figure out who actually took that word out because it's pretty clear Biden was very involved in Hunter's businesses. And that's why he put that word financially in there because he was on I think he's on all the documents as being part of it. And he's in the emails. So he was the branch. I kill.
你能搞定吗？你有那个东西吗？是的，太疯狂了。让我找找。太疯狂了。我的意思是，我愿意相信有可能性。这是个错误，但是嗨，它真的很严重。我的意思是，这个纽约时报的报道真的很糟糕。他们必须找出谁实际上删除了那个单词，因为很明显拜登在亨特的生意中非常有参与度。这就是为什么他在那里加了financially这个词，因为据我所知，他在所有的文件中都被列为其中一部分。而且他也出现在那些邮件中。所以他是这个问题的根源。我会废掉他。
Oh, there it is. Nick, you're very good at finding these things there. Okay. So if you look on the left, that's the article in the New York Times. And it's clear that that was the quote. And then if you play it on the right, it's actually what he said. Let me state as clearly as I can. My father was not financially involved in my business. Wow. Yeah. And then quotes as I can, my father was not involved in my business.
哦，就在那儿。尼克，你非常擅长找到这些东西。好的。所以如果你看左边，那是《纽约时报》上的文章。很清楚那是引用的内容。然后如果你在右边播放，那实际上是他说的话。让我尽我所能地表述清楚。我父亲在我的生意中并没有经济上的参与。哇。是的。然后引用的是我所能的，我父亲没有参与我的生意。
Now, if in journalism, you could put an ellipsis after involved, you know, three dots. But why would you do that? This is like breaking very basic journalistic standards. This is my point. There's like a format, right? When you edit out a word like that, you would only edit out a word if it was superfluous and you wanted to have a tighter quote, you know, of the persons that, mmm, ah, you can take that out. And if you were taking out a long quote, you put three dots and then you would show that you cut the quote, there was something in between. And then you went to that. That is true. In the case of something this important, you would never take out a keyword like that. This is just journalism 101.
现在，在新闻报道中，如果你在"involved"后面加上省略号，也就是三个点。但是你为什么要这样做呢？这就像是违反了非常基本的新闻报道准则。这就是我的观点。你知道，有一种格式，对吧？当你编辑一个词时，只有当它是多余的，而且你想要更紧凑的引用时，才会编辑掉一个词，就像是某某人的...嗯，啊，你可以把这个去掉。如果你删除的是一个长引用，则在三个点之后，你会表明你删减了引用中的内容。然后你继续下面的内容。这是正确的。在这种重要的情况下，你永远不会删除一个关键词。这只是新闻报道的基本要点。
So I mean, if this happens, man, it is, it's the keyword in the sentence, by the way, it's the keyword in the sentence. It is the key word in the sentence. So if the person took it out, man, who took it out? And this is the problem with the New York Times is they bury their corrections. They need to, and this is back to accountability. You're saying, freeburg, the Biden administration has to explain why they excluded Elon from the Eevee Summit. And the New York Times needs to explain why they did this or else, you know, the mind wanders that there's some conspiracy going on here or targeting. And I wonder if they changed it. Well, here's the live story. Is it changed in the story? Did they, they change it yet? Luke Broadwater. I mean, Luke Broadwater. Is that a name from central casting? That's not a real name, is it? I don't know. Let's say they post a correction. Oh, here we go. Correction. An earlier version of this article misquoted Hunter Biden. You said my father was not financially. It was not my father. So the only room I have here is if the person was live transcribing it, maybe, and they left it out, but this is too important to not have a fact checker go through it. And to have to get called out on it to fix it. He just shows how far the time.
所以我的意思是，如果这种情况发生了，天哪，这是句子中的关键词，顺便说一句，它是句子中的关键词。它是句子中的关键词。如果这个人把它拿掉了，天啊，是谁拿掉了？这就是《纽约时报》的问题，他们将他们的更正藏起来了。他们必须，这又涉及到问责制。你说，费伯格，拜登政府必须解释为什么排除了埃隆参加电动汽车峰会。《纽约时报》需要解释为什么这样做，否则，你知道，人们会猜测这里是不是有一些阴谋或者针对。而且我想知道他们是否已经改变了它。嗯，这就是现场报道。它在报道中有没有改变？他们改了吗？卢克·布罗德沃特。我是说，卢克·布罗德沃特。那是不是中央制片厂的名字？那是不是真名？我不知道。假设他们发布了一个更正。哦，这就对了。更正。这篇文章的早期版本误引用了亨特·拜登的话。你说我父亲在财务上并没有参与。不是我父亲。所以我这里唯一的解释是，如果有人现场实时转录了它，可能他们漏掉了，但是这太重要了，不能没有一个事实核实员来审核一下。被批评并被迫修正只是显示了《纽约时报》已经走得有多远了。
This is the equivalent though, J. Cal, of putting on the front page. I did not kill that person. And then a day later, it buried in page A12. I actually did kill that person. I mean, if you, the question at the bottom of the story is good. Everybody sees the front page. Very, very people. You would agree with me. Very, very few people see the correction. In the old days, they would put the correction on like A two, A three of the paper and it would be small and be at the bottom in the digital age. You put the correction at the bottom of the article. So it's a little bit better. But the truth is most people don't go to the bottom of the article. So there's an argument to put corrections at the top of the article. But journalists don't want to admit when they're wrong.
尽管如此，J. Cal先生，这等同于将其放在头版上。我没有杀害那个人。然后一天之后，它被埋在A12版上。实际上，我确实杀了那个人。我的意思是，如果你看故事底部的问题是好的。每个人都会看到头版。非常，非常的人。你会同意我的观点。很少有人会看到更正内容。过去，他们会把更正放在报纸的A2、A3上，而且会很小，位于底部。在数字时代，你会把更正放在文章底部，所以这样稍微好一点。但事实上，大多数人不会去文章底部。因此有人主张将更正放在文章开头。但记者们不愿承认犯错。
I think that I saw, I saw a list of all of the organizations investigating Elon. And what was surprising was how broad some of these organizations. Felt that they had a mandate to look into him. So there was like, I want to say Nick, maybe you can find this on Twitter, but they had a list of them. And it was like the Bureau of Land Management investigation. I mean, it just makes no sense. Like it just does not smell right.
我想我看到了一个关于调查埃隆的所有组织的列表。令人惊讶的是，其中一些组织的范围很广，似乎他们有权调查他。我记得好像是尼克，也许你可以在推特上找到这个列表，上面有很多，像是土地管理局的调查，这根本没有道理，感觉怪怪的。
In fairness, Elon is involved in many, many very important projects. So there would be a lot of agencies that speaks to over regulation. And then you have to drill down and say, okay, when are they actually targeting him? And so that's going to be a lot of part. Fish and wildlife, you know, health and human housing. I mean, it's a list goes on. You might lose a baby.
公平地说，埃隆参与了许多非常重要的项目。因此，会有很多政府机构对过度监管发表言论。然后你必须深入研究，看看他们实际上是在针对他什么。这将涉及很多部门，例如渔业和野生动物、卫生和人类住房等等。这可能导致一些损失。
No, I think my understanding that is, you know, at Starbase, there's some estuaries or something and there was a lot of estuaries. I mean, yes, we protect animals and whatever. This is something that happens all over the country where in California is actually probably the leader in this, but I think some crabs might have got burned, not in a barbecue, but by the rocket. I mean, literally that. And then this is this speaks to what risk are we willing to take to make progress as humanity for you.
不，我认为我的理解是，你知道，在星基有一些河口或其他东西，而且有很多河口。我的意思是，是的，我们保护动物和其他什么的。这是全国各地都发生的事情，但在加利福尼亚州可能是领先者。但我想一些螃蟹可能被烧伤了，不是在烧烤上，而是被火箭烧伤了。我的意思就是字面上的那样。这涉及到为了人类进步，我们愿意承担多大的风险。
Berg, remember we had the discussion about self-driving cars? Like if getting to Mars and being multi-planetary kills some crabs, I think we should be okay with that. In fact, if it decimated, I mean, it's not decimated, but let's just say 100 square miles got decimated by getting to Mars on planet Earth. But you'd make that trade off, right? Yeah, it's a, I mean, this is the same standard.
伯格，还记得我们讨论过自动驾驶汽车的事吗？就像如果登上火星和成为多重星球杀死了一些螃蟹，我觉得我们应该能接受。实际上，就算只是损害了100平方英里的地球上的领土，你也会接受这种交换，对吧？是的，这其实是同一标准。
I think I feel around, if there's a mouse infestation in my house, I'm not going to let the mice live in my house, even though I'm completely ethically against killing animals, killing animals to eat when I have other options, I'm against. And I think animal testing and medical applications, I have a totally different standard than I think what is standard in the market today. So for me, it's like a pretty sensitive topic because my ethics are don't kill animals unless absolutely necessary. And the question is what is the definition of necessary? And so these sorts of points that you're making about, you know, if it gets all humans to Mars, that might be a trade off worth making for some of the crabs.
我觉得我会四处摸索，如果我家有老鼠滋扰，尽管我完全反对杀害动物，但我不会让老鼠住在我的房子里。当有其他选择时，我反对为了食物而杀害动物。而对于动物实验和医学应用，我认为我的标准与如今市场上的标准完全不同。所以对我来说，这是一个相当敏感的话题，因为我的伦理观是除非绝对必要，否则不要杀害动物。问题是什么是必要的定义？所以你所提出的这些观点，比如，如果为了把所有人送上火星，为了一些螃蟹而做出的这种权衡可能是值得的。
I don't, you know, it's like probably how many hearts I'm saying the analogy here. Are you saying that Elon's the mouse? The rocket may have killed a mouse. The Raylators own the house. Wait, what's the, who's the mouse and who's the house? The house is the rocket ship. Clearly the mouse is the mouse in the house, right? Yeah.
我不知道，就像我这里所说的类比可能有多少个心脏。你是说埃隆是老鼠吗？火箭可能杀了一只老鼠。瑞鼠的主人拥有这座房子。等等，谁是老鼠，谁是房子？房子就是火箭。显然老鼠是房子里的老鼠，对吧？是的。
Let's pull up this quote from Brendan Carr as the FCC commissioner. I thought this was amazing. This list is incredible. This is the FCC commissioner. He said, he said the DOJ FAA, FTC, NLRB, SDNY, and an FWS, I guess that's Fisher Wildlife have all taken action. The FCC now joins them. Man, that's incredible.
让我们引用联邦通信委员会（FCC）委员布伦丹·卡尔（Brendan Carr）的这句话。我觉得这句话很了不起。这份清单真是令人难以置信。布伦丹·卡尔是FCC委员。他说，司法部（DOJ）、联邦航空管理局（FAA）、联邦贸易委员会（FTC）、国家劳工关系委员会（NLRB）、美国纽约南区联邦地方法院（SDNY）以及捕鱼与野生动物局（FWS），我猜FWS代表的是Fisher Wildlife，这些机构都采取了行动。现在FCC也加入了他们。哇，这太不可思议了。
Yeah, it's a little bit nuts. Look at that Biden quote where I didn't actually know about the second part. I knew about the first part where he says we got to take a look at this guy. But then he was. Listen, how this guy, Biden responded, there's a lot of ways. There's a lot of ways. There's a lot of ways to get to somebody. Yeah, it's like 20,000. I can get to you. You might be able to get to me. I might be able to get to you and maybe you'll watch it back. You know, and else Biden said there's a lot of ways is when he was talking about the Nord Stream pipeline and he said that pipeline is not going to move forward. And then they said, yeah, but the press set to him. Yeah, but that's like a German Russian project. Like how, what's your involvement? How are you going to do it? He said, we got ways. There are a lot of ways. We got ways. Wow. Ouch.
是的，有点疯狂。看看那个拜登的引用，我其实不知道第二部分的内容。我知道他说的第一部分，他说我们必须对这个人进行审查。但然后他接着说，听着，这个人有很多办法。有很多办法。有很多办法可以达到某人。是的，就像2万一样，我可以接触到你。你可能也可以接触到我。我也许可以接触到你，然后你再回过头来看。你知道的，拜登还说了有很多办法，他是在谈论北溪天然气管道，他说那条管道不会继续推进。然后他们说，是的，但媒体问他，是一项德俄合作项目，你有什么参与？你怎么做到？他说，我们有办法。有很多办法。我们有办法。哇，痛击。
Okay. So on the counterpoint, obviously, Elon has several pretty sprawling businesses. He has self-driving cars. Right. And they push, right? They push the envelope on, you know, where there's an existing regulatory framework, same with going to Mars, right, same with transmitting internet services, wireless communications. Like, you know, there is a regulatory framework for all of these businesses. And he's on the bleeding edge and typically beyond the framework to some degree. So I think it's like worth acknowledging at least that there's an an necessity of scrutiny and involvement in these agencies, given that they do have regulatory authority and responsibility over these various businesses. And he's well beyond where anyone else is in each of them. So I just want to acknowledge that.
好的。所以就对立观点来说，显然，埃隆有几个相当庞大的企业。他有自动驾驶汽车。是的。而且他在推动进步，对于已有的监管框架，去火星，传输互联网服务以及无线通信方面都是如此。就像你知道的，所有这些企业都有监管框架。他处在前沿，并且通常超越了一定程度的框架。因此，我认为值得承认，至少要对这些机构进行审查和参与，因为它们对这些不同的企业拥有监管权力和责任。而他在每一个领域都远远超过其他任何人。所以我只是想要承认这一点。
Hold on. Let me respond to that. Yeah. He's well beyond where other people are in his industry in terms of innovation. He's the first to acknowledge, because I've heard him say this many times, that he's in highly regulated industries and they've got, you know, massive compliance programs at Tesla and SpaceX and all these different companies. What we're judging these regulatory agencies on is not that there's a need to regulate Elon's companies within the framework of their industries, but rather the specific actions that are being brought.
等一下。让我回答一下。对的。在创新方面，他在自己所在行业远远超越其他人。他是第一个承认这一点的，因为我听他说过很多次，他所在的特斯拉和太空探索技术公司等都属于高度监管的行业，这些公司都有着庞大的合规程序。我们对这些监管机构进行评判的并不是在他们所在行业的框架内对伊隆的公司进行监管的必要性，而是具体的行动。
Remember, DOJ suing SpaceX for not hiring enough refugees, right? Tesla being sued on this glasshouse business, whatever that is. Right. Now those are those are the reactions in a sec. FCC canceling a contract. Yeah. Three years. Speak volumes. The actions. Exactly. Three years before they even need to judge that contract, whether that contract's been met.
记住，司法部因SpaceX没有雇佣足够的难民而起诉他们，对吧？特斯拉因为这个玻璃问题也被起诉了，不管那是什么。对。现在这些都是一些很快的反应。联邦通信委员会终止了一个合同。是的。三年的时间说话了。这些行动。确实如此。甚至在他们需要对该合同进行裁决之前的三年内，是否达到了该合同的要求。
Hundred percent of things that happened this week, which I think is important along this vein is that the IRS is in charge of making sure that you can claim the $7,500 EV tax credit for cars. And a lot of us that have been looking at this issue, the way that they break the EV tax credit is in half. And part of it is about where the material is sourced and part of it has to do with the total sum of certain components of the car and how much of those are made in the US, etc.
在我看来，本周最重要的事情之一是美国国税局负责确保你能够申请7500美元的电动汽车税收减免。对于我们很多关注这个问题的人来说，电动汽车税收减免的分配方式是一半一半。其中一部分与材料的来源有关，另一部分与汽车的某些组件的总和以及其中多少是在美国制造的有关。
Okay. And it was presumed, just based on the trend, that Tesla would lose half the credit, keep half the credit. And in a bit of a surprising move, the IRS came out and said, the whole thing, we're not going to acknowledge anymore. So Tesla had to go and put on the website that the credit ends as of December 31. So I would add the IRS to this list as well. That's so crazy. So I've got to be investigated.
好的。根据趋势，有人认为特斯拉将失去一半的税收减免，保留一半的税收减免。但让人有些意外的是，国税局发表声明说，整个税收减免计划将不再被承认。因此，特斯拉不得不在其网站上表明税收减免将在12月31日截止。所以我会将国税局也加入到这个列表中。真是太疯狂了。所以我必须接受调查。
I like Freiberg suggestion that proved to us that you're not doing this at this point, because it's pretty clear that it is happening. And it's just absolutely gross. Good luck getting them to do that. Just on the on that EV subsidy. You know, one of the perverse things about this is that the administration is putting the thumb on the scales against Elon in favor of these less innovative competitors who have worse products.
我喜欢弗里伯格的建议，这向我们证明您并没有在做这件事情，因为很明显这事正在发生。而且，这真的很恶心。祝你成功说服他们做出改变。就电动汽车补贴而言，这其中让人感到矛盾的一点是，政府正在偏袒那些创新程度较低、产品质量较差的竞争对手，而不是埃隆的公司。
So like Elon said, if you want to cancel our contract for Starlink to provide this rural broadband, that's fine to save taxpayers the money. But by all means, don't then give them money to these other services. I can't deliver. What's the point of that? And same thing on the electric cars. I mean, the subsidy is going to these other car companies that make worse products. Yeah, totally. This is the key point. The fact is, all of those people who just had their Starlink cancel through the government, I guarantee you, they will buy Starlink because it's the best product.
就像埃隆说的那样，如果你想取消我们为Starlink提供乡村宽带的合同，为了节省纳税人的钱那也没问题。但是，请千万别把这笔钱给那些其他我无法提供的服务。那有什么意义呢？同样的情况也出现在电动汽车上。我的意思是，这些补贴都流向了那些生产更差产品的其他汽车公司。是的，完全正确。这是关键所在。事实是，所有那些通过政府取消了他们的Starlink合约的人，我向你保证，他们会购买Starlink，因为它是最好的产品。
So irony of ironies, they're just going to go spend 60, 70, 80 bucks a month to put their own Starlinks. And like everybody else around the world who lives really, I have Starlink. One more thing to add. They under pressure from regulators, they announced a recall on Tuesday of two million cars to to fix some of the autopilot software.
讽刺的是，他们会花60、70、80美元每月来安装自己的Starlink。就像世界上其他地方的人一样，我也有Starlink。还有一件事要补充，受到监管机构的压力，他们在周二宣布召回200万辆汽车，以修复部分自动驾驶软件的问题。
Yeah, but that's an over the air update. So the press went crazy about that, right? No, no, no, what I'm saying is if you read the article, that over the air update is specifically because of, again, how it's written, regulatory pressure to change how the software behaves. Some tuning in some edge cases. My point is that one could guess that there is an attempt here to kind of do the death by a thousand cuts approach, right? So the drip, drip, water torture of just like a thing over here, a thing over here, a thing over here, a thing over here.
是的，但那是一次无线更新。所以媒体对此感到疯狂，对吧？不，不，不，我的意思是如果你读了那篇文章，那个无线更新是因为监管压力要求改变软件行为的。在某些边缘情况下进行一些调整。我的观点是，你可以猜测这里可能有一种“千刀万剐”的手法，对吧？就像滴水穿石般的一点点，一个问题在这里，一个问题在那里，一个问题在这里，一个问题在那里。
Eventually companies can get distracted and misfire. And so the question I do think is like, you know, does it make us better off if all of these little tikitaki foot faults are enforced by the government? I think we all know what the answer is. No, we have an example that Microsoft got so distracted by their court cases that the company went sideways for a decade. Well, but that, I mean, I think there was a lot of good basis for that particular anti-trust case and Microsoft clearly had a monopoly.
公司最终可能会分心和误判。所以我的问题是，如果政府强制执行所有这些微小的错误行为，我们是否会得到更大的利益呢？我想我们都知道答案。不，我们有一个例子，微软因为法庭诉讼分心，让公司陷入了十年的困境。嗯，但是，我认为这个反垄断案件有很多充分的理由，微软显然拥有垄断地位。
Just on the recall thing, I did see that story at the top of Drudge or whatever last week, whereas it said every Tesla has to be recalled. And when I see the word recall, I think that means you got to bring it to the dealership and get like some part swapped out. But that's not what happened. No, well, so what's so interesting is they refuse in these articles. I can show you the New York Times version of it. They refuse to write that it's actually an OTA update.
关于召回一事，上周我在Drudge或其他地方看到了这个新闻，上面说每辆特斯拉都必须召回。当我看到“召回”这个词时，我认为意味着你必须把车送到经销店更换某个零件。但事实并非如此。嗯，并且有趣的是，这些文章中故意避免提及这实际上是通过OTA（远程更新）完成的。我可以给你看纽约时报的版本。
To your breaking news, I don't know if you guys saw this, but a billion five iPhones were just recalled for the 17.2 update. So everybody's going to have to bring their iPhones in 1.5 billion iPhones. We're calling it to the store. Yeah, you got to bring it to the store. Then they give you this new journal app. I don't know if you got it in the latest update, but Apple made a journaling app so that you can have more anonymity. Yeah, that's the recall. Yeah, it's total recall.
根据你的突发消息，我不知道你们是否看到了这个，但有15亿个iPhone刚刚被召回了，原因是17.2更新的问题。所以每个人都需要把他们的iPhone带到店里，是15亿个iPhone。我们称之为召回。是的，你需要把它带到店里。然后他们会给你一个新的日记应用。我不知道你是否有在最新版本中更新，但是苹果推出了一个日记应用，以便你可以更加匿名地使用。是的，这就是召回。是的，这是一次完全召回。
All right, listen, now we keep the red meat going. Saks is cooking with oil. Alex Jones, the controversial conspiracy commentator of Infowars fame, is back on Twitter after Elon did a poll. He got too many people to respond asking if he should be reinstated. 70% said yes. Of course, Jones encourages fans to vote in this poll. So I'm not sure how scientific it is for background. Twitter permanently banned Jones in 2018 after accusing him of posting direct threats of violence and hate speech. It already received bans from Apple, Facebook and YouTube is pretty much the number one person to be deplatformed.
好的，听着，现在我们继续关注红肉话题。Saks（可能指Saks Fifth Avenue，美国一家高档百货公司）正在大展身手。《真新闻》（Infowars）这个备受争议的阴谋评论家Alex Jones，在埃隆（可能指埃隆·马斯克，特斯拉创始人）进行了一次调查后重新回到了Twitter上。他成功地让太多人回应，询问是否应该恢复他的账号。70%的人回答“是”。当然，Jones鼓励粉丝们参与这次调查。所以对于背景来说，我不确定它有多科学。Twitter在2018年永久封禁了Jones，指控他发布直接威胁暴力和仇恨言论。他已经被苹果、Facebook和YouTube封禁，可以说他是被取消平台的头号人物。
As you know, Jones was ordered to pay $1.5 billion to the families of eight Sandy Hook victims. This is across two cases in Texas and Connecticut. And here is Jones in his own words on the Sandy Hook parents. Sandy Hook, it's got Inside Job written all over it. Sandy Hook is a synthetic, completely fake with actors in my view manufactured. I couldn't believe it at first. The new town kids, oh, they take them, put them in our face, tell us their names, who they were. I heard an ad this morning on the radio, Bloomberg paid for it locally. Going, I dropped Billy off and watched him go around the corner. And he never came back all because of the guns. Won't you just turn your guns in from my son? Why'd you do it to him, gun owners? Forgive my language, but that guy. Okay, there it is, folks. We have a that guy, but let me have. That does that mean sense for him? Unaffortunating, I absolutely cannot stand that guy. That is just like heart wrenching, like evil, awful, spewing out of his mouth. And he still, you know, should have a right to speak, but man, that guy. I was never a big crier. Part of it was just my defense mechanism. And I remember Sandy Hook because I had just become a parent. I had, I think, two kids by that point. And I was uncontrollably crying when that happened. And it was the first time I realized how you change as a parent and you just develop this empathy. And then you realize how precious kids lives are. And I've become more and more of a crier as my kids have grown older. And I really appreciate that what my kids have done for me. So when I hear him talk like that, I, yes, he has a right to say what he wants, but he is a complete piece of. Yeah.
你知道的，琼斯被命令支付15亿美元给8名桑迪胡克受害者的家属。这起事件分布在德克萨斯州和康涅狄格州两个案件中。以下是琼斯本人对桑迪胡克受害者家长的言论。桑迪胡克，这里有一系列内部策划。在我看来，桑迪胡克是人造的、完全虚假的，有演员参与制造。起初我无法相信。新镇的孩子们，哦，他们把他们带来，在我们面前，告诉我们他们的名字，他们是谁。今天早晨我在电台听到一则广告，是布隆伯格赞助的，说我从车上把比利放下，看着他转过街角。但他再也没回来，全部归咎于枪支。你们为什么不为了我儿子放弃枪支呢？你们为什么对他这样做，持枪者？请原谅我言辞激烈，但那个家伙。好了，就是这样，伙计们。我们有一个那种人，但也请让我发表一下自己的看法。那对他来说意味着什么呢？不幸的是，我绝对无法忍受那个家伙。那简直就像心碎，邪恶，可怕，从他口中喷涌而出。虽然他仍然有权发表言论，但那个家伙。我以前从不爱哭。其中一部分是我的防御机制。我还记得桑迪胡克事件，当时我刚成为一个父亲。在那个时候，我应该已经有两个孩子了。当那件事发生时，我无法控制地哭泣。那是我第一次意识到，作为一个父母，你是如何改变的，你只是发展了这种同理心。然后你意识到孩子们的生命是多么宝贵。随着我的孩子们长大，我变得越来越爱哭。我非常感激我的孩子们对我所做的一切。所以当我听到他那样说话时，是的，他有权说他想说的，但他完全是一个混蛋。是的。
Okay. So let's get into this very difficult question. And Zach, I don't want to force you to defend, you know, one of those horrible humans. I think we can all agree. Well, my position is pretty similar with the other guys said, which is what he said was ODS. However, that doesn't necessarily mean he should be censored. We have standards. We have First Amendment standards around the stuff. I agree with that.
好的。所以我们来讨论这个非常困难的问题。Zach，我不想强迫你为那些可怕的人辩护。我认为我们都可以达成共识。嗯，我的立场和其他人说的差不多，他说的话确实挺过分的。但是，这并不意味着他应该被审查。我们有一套标准，关于这些事情我们有第一修正案的标准。我同意这个观点。
So first of all, meet back up. I mean, I didn't even really know who Alex Jones was. I mean, I only knew him because of the controversy. I've never actually listened to a show. I'm not really interested in what he has to say. I do think that if you're going to play this clip of his mistake going back many years, you should supplement it by playing a clip of what he says now. And what he says now is he's apologized. He's admitted he made a mistake. He basically bought into a conspiracy theory, but it wasn't just him saying it. Apparently he had some people on the show who, I don't know if they were purported experts or what, but they were making a case that the whole Sandy Hook thing was a hoax and it was being done to basically, you know, get people's guns. I mean, look, it's nutty stuff. I'm not defending it in any way. But he explained that he bought into that theory or hoax or whatever. And he thinks it's a terrible mistake and he's apologized for it.
首先，重新会合一下。我是说，我之前对Alex Jones并不了解。我只是因为争议才知道他的存在。实际上我从来没有听过他的节目，我对他说些什么并不感兴趣。但我认为，如果你要播放他多年前的失误片段，应该补充播放一下他现在说的内容。他现在说的是他道歉了，承认自己犯了一个错误。他基本上相信了一个阴谋论，但并不仅仅是他一个人这么说。显然，在他的节目上还有一些人，我不知道他们是所谓的专家还是什么，但他们提出了一个论点，声称整个“Sandy Hook”事件是一个骗局，目的只是为了夺取人们的枪支。我只能说，这种言论很荒谬，我并不以任何方式为它辩护。但他解释说他当时相信了那个阴谋论，他认为这是一个糟糕的错误，并为此道歉了。
And the question is, are you going to have a lifetime ban on somebody for saying things that were wrong and odious when they have now apologized? And for me, it's not about Alex Jones. It's about censorship. Remember, when this case happened way back in 2018, it was really hard to defend keeping this guy on the platform in light of what he had said and done because everyone's reacting very emotionally to it. And it was people like defenders of free speech like Lengreen Wald who said that, listen, if you take Alex Jones out now, if you have a permanent ban, it will basically be a slippery slope and it will create a precedent and other people will get banned. And sure enough, just two years later, Twitter was banning people like Jay Bontatrías, Stanford doctor for saying dissonant things about COVID that turned out to be completely correct. Marie authored the Great Barrington Declaration, talking about how lockdowns wouldn't work and so on. And so even within two years of this decision around Alex Jones, the censorship was totally out of control. And so I think the people who warned us that Alex Jones would become a slippery slope ended up being completely correct.
问题是，你是不是打算对一个已经道歉的人实施终身禁令，仅仅因为他们在过去说过错误和令人讨厌的话？对我来说，这个问题不是关于亚历克斯·琼斯本人，而是关于审查制度。记得，当这个案件发生在2018年时，很难为这个人继续留在平台上辩护，因为大家对他说过和做过的事情都非常情绪化地做出了反应。像蓝格林瓦德这样捍卫言论自由的人说，听着，如果你现在把亚历克斯·琼斯踢下去，实施终身禁令，那么这将成为一个很危险的先例，其他人也会被禁言。果不其然，在仅仅两年后，Twitter就因为像杰伊·邦塔特里亚斯这样的斯坦福大学医生为COVID发表不同意见而被禁言，而这些观点事实证明是完全正确的。玛丽发起了《大巴林顿宣言》，谈论封锁措施不会起作用等等。所以，甚至在亚历克斯·琼斯决定两年后，审查制度完全失控了。因此，我认为那些警告我们亚历克斯·琼斯会导致危险先例的人最终是完全正确的。
To me, that's the symbolism of the restoration of Alex Jones's account. It's not endorsing what he did. It's not saying that what he said wasn't odious. I mean, look, again, I have zero interest even listening to the guy. But the point is that free speech does require us to put up with people who are wrong, people who are even hateful sometimes. And stating misinformation. People who put out misinformation. That's what free speech requires us to do. And if you want a different standard, it's going to become a precedent for a lot of censorship that you don't like.
对我而言，亚历克斯·琼斯恢复账户的象征意义在于这并不表示我认同他所做的事情。也不是说他所说的话不可恶。我的意思是，再说一遍，我对这个人没有丝毫兴趣听。但问题是，自由言论确实要求我们容忍那些错误的人，甚至是有时充满仇恨的人。以及散布错误信息的人。自由言论要求我们这样做。如果你希望有不同的标准，那将成为你不喜欢的许多审查的先例。
I agree with SACS. The only place where I disagree with SACS is on Twitter not having a right to do this. As a private enterprise, I think Twitter had a decision to make on what kind of editorial visualization they wanted to do with the content on their platform, on their product. And they made a choice. I don't think that I think it was the wrong choice personally. We've talked about this in the past. It's great that Elon's making a different choice and catering to a different audience, perhaps, with a different product that has more open speech. But that's not a government free speech mandate. That's a private enterprise mandate. And I do believe in the right to free speech.
我同意SACS的观点。唯一让我与SACS不同意的地方是关于Twitter无权这样做的问题。作为一家私营企业，我认为Twitter在他们的平台、他们的产品上对内容进行编辑可视化是他们自己的决定。他们做出了选择。我个人认为这个选择是正确的。我们之前已经谈论过这个问题。伊隆（Elon）做出了不同的选择，并为不同的受众提供了不同的产品，其中包含更加开放的言论。但这并不是政府对言论自由的指令，而是一家私营企业的指令。我确实相信言论自由的权利。
I think it's a little bit ironic to say that it's inappropriate when someone says something that is misinformation because it's incorrect or unprovable, when we have an entire group of people that believe in something called religion. And much of religion is based on this concept of faith and belief without necessarily hard proof or evidence. And we allow religion, religious speech in many forums without saying, hey, that's misinformation or hey, it's not true or hey, it doesn't meet the standards of X or Y or Z's scientific assessment or understanding. And so I think it's just worth acknowledging that this whole concept that someone has to ultimately be the police of the truth and the police effect and the police of information is going to lead to a bad place. And I'd rather have more free speech with people saying misinformation and saying awful, putrid things than one where a few people get to decide what everyone gets to hear.
我认为当有人说出错误或无法证明的错误信息时，称其为“不适当”有些讽刺，因为我们有一个完整的群体相信宗教这个东西。而宗教的许多内容都基于信仰和相信的概念，并不一定有确凿的证据或证明。我们在许多论坛上都允许宗教言论存在，而不会说，“嘿，这是错误的信息”，或者说，“嘿，它不是事实”，或者说，“嘿，它不符合某某科学评估或认知的标准”。因此，我认为值得承认的是，有人必须最终成为真相、影响和信息的警察，这会导致一个糟糕的情况。与其只让少数人决定大家能听到什么，我宁愿有更多的言论自由，人们可以说出错误信息和恶劣的东西。
So as much as I absolutely despise this kind of. Trevor, you may be right that Twitter as a private company had the right as our laws currently exist to decide who they were going to suspend and ban from the site. However, once that censorship power was created, it attracted powerful entities from our government who wanted to co-opt and use that power. That's what we saw in the Twitter files with the AD FBI agent sending take-down requests. That's what happens is when you create the censorship power, people will abuse it.
我非常厌恶这种行为。Trevor，或许你是对的，根据现行法律规定，作为一家私人公司，Twitter有权决定他们要封禁和禁止使用该网站的人。然而，一旦这种审查权力被创建，政府中的强大力量就会被吸引过来，试图利用并控制这种权力。这正是我们在Twitter文件中看到的，AD FBI特工发送下架请求。当你创建审查权力时，人们就会滥用它。
People will abuse it, but more to the point, it's such a tempting power to use by people in authority. It's like the ring of power. Those tools that Twitter created, it's like they released a pheromone or something that attracted all these powerful shadowy actors from the federal government in the FBI and all these agencies. So that is why I think it's just very dangerous for even private companies to create these censorship regimes is that they can be co-opted and abused. Being co-opted and abused is the issue.
人们会滥用它，更要紧的是，权威人士使用这种权力非常具有诱惑力。就像权力之戒一样。Twitter创造的那些工具，就像它们释放了一种信息素或者其他什么东西，吸引了来自联邦政府、FBI和其他各种机构中的所有这些有权势的暗影角色。因此，我认为即使是私营公司也很危险地创建这些审查制度，因为它们可能会被占领和滥用。被占领和滥用正是问题所在。
I don't think that the issue is their choice in what kind of content they want to put out. You can go to the Netflix kids version of Netflix and they control what content is on Netflix and they provide a different version than what they provide to adults. And I think like editorializing the content platform that you're making available, whether it's user-generated or paid for or whatever, is a totally reasonable like approach to running a business, a content business.
我不认为问题在于他们选择发布哪种类型的内容。你可以去Netflix的儿童版本，他们控制Netflix上的内容，并提供与成人版不同的版本。我认为，编辑平台上提供的内容，无论是用户生成的还是付费的，都是经营内容业务的完全合理的方法。
The point you're making is the right one, which is the point at which you allow government agencies to intervene and have control and manipulation over private citizens, user-generated content is where I think it crossed the line. So I don't disagree with you on that point.
你所表达的观点是正确的，即当你允许政府机构对私人公民进行干预、控制和操控时，用户生成的内容就是我认为越界的地方。所以，在这一点上，我不与你的观点相悖。
May I ask two clarifying questions here because I'm curious how you would handle this. If you were the CEO of X, formerly known as Twitter, would you have reinstated Alex Jones? Yes or no? And then number two, if Alex Jones then as a new member of the community who's been reinstated and forgiven because he apologized and then he did this again, this exact same thing again, with another school shooting with parents, would you remove him for the platform?
我可以在这里问两个澄清问题吗？因为我很好奇你会如何处理这个问题。假设你是X（即Twitter）的CEO，你会重新聘用Alex Jones吗？是或不是？然后第二个问题是，如果Alex Jones作为一个已经被重新聘用并因为向大家道歉而被原谅的新社群成员，再次重复了完全相同的行为，比如另一起涉及校园枪击的事件，你会将他从平台上删除吗？
I don't know that these are yes or no questions. What I would say is that I've written what I think should be a speech policy for social media platforms in a blog post I did several years ago. And what I said is that I would take first amendment case law and operationalize it for social media platforms. There are nine categories of speech that the Supreme Court has said are not protected speech because they're dangerous in some way. So for example, incitement to violence is one of them. Harassment is one of them. So I would use-
我不知道这些问题是「是」还是「否」的。我所说的是，几年前我在博客里写了一篇关于社交媒体平台演讲政策的文章。我提到，我会将第一修正案的案例法适用于社交媒体平台。最高法院已经确定了九类言论不受保护，因为它们以某种方式具有危险性。例如，煽动暴力就是其中之一，骚扰也是其中之一。所以我会运用这些准则。
Well, this clearly falls under those two.
嗯，很明显，这明显属于那两种情况之一。
Well, his fans went and knocked on the door to his parents. His fans did it.
好吧，他的粉丝去敲了他父母的门。他的粉丝这么做了。
Yeah. So as I understand the whole Sandy Hook thing, what happened is he said the whole thing was a hoax. That obviously wasn't true. He paid a huge price for that. His fans then, some of his crazy fans went and harassed the parents, which obviously is not right. But according to him, he didn't and I don't know that anyone's shown that he did that. I don't think he encouraged that. It just happened. By the nature of his fans.
是的。据我所了解，关于整个桑迪胡克事件，他曾声称整件事是一个骗局。显然，这是不真实的。他为此付出了巨大的代价。然后，他的一些疯狂粉丝去骚扰了受害者的家长，这显然是不对的。但据他说，他没有这样做，而且我也不知道有人证明了他那样做了。我不认为他鼓励这样做，这只是因为他粉丝的本性导致的。
Well, of course he does. It's a conspiracy show. So knowing it's a conspiracy show, knowing that incitement to violence is one of your criteria, if his fans, after him saying it's fake, then went to the house, knocked on the door and asked the parent to see little Susie because you know she's alive, would you kick him off the platform?
当然了，他肯定会被踢下平台。这是一个阴谋秀。既然知道这是一个阴谋秀，知道煽动暴力是你的一个标准之一，如果他的粉丝在他说这是假的之后跑到他家，敲门并要求见一见小苏西，因为他们相信她还活着，那你会把他踢下平台吗？
Listen, the Barrington Declaration was declared to be a conspiracy show. The idea that COVID originated in a lab is considered a conspiracy show. I don't think you can prejudge in advance that a show is quote unquote factually wrong conspiracies.
听着，巴林顿宣言被宣布为阴谋表演。认为新冠病毒起源于实验室的观点被视为阴谋论。我不认为你可以事先预判一个节目是否完全错误或带有阴谋色彩。
As I understand it, again, I haven't watched the show, but I did watch a clip by Joe Rogan who provided something of a character reference for Alex Jones. I don't know if Nick can find that and play that. It was actually quite good. What Rogan said is, look, I've known Alex Jones for like 30 years. He's had problems with alcohol abuse, substance abuse, whatever. He's had mental health issues that he's acknowledged and sometimes he goes off the rails. At the same time, he's also been way ahead of the curve on certain things. For example, he told me about the Epstein Island like 10 years before the story broke. I don't know how he figured that out, but somehow he did. Now that was a conspiracy theory until it was proven true. And it probably would have been a good thing for the public if that story had come out a lot sooner so that it could have been shut down a lot sooner. So I don't think you can just judge in advance that somebody is a conspiracy theorist and basically blackball them from the internet.
据我理解，再说一遍，我没有看过这个节目，但我看过乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）的一个剪辑，他对亚历克斯·琼斯（Alex Jones）提供了一些性格背景参考。我不知道尼克能否找到那个并播放给大家。实际上，那个剪辑相当不错。罗根所说的是，看，我认识亚历克斯·琼斯已经有30年了。他曾有过酗酒、滥用物质的问题，精神健康问题他自己也承认过，并且有时确实言辞过激。与此同时，他在某些事情上也走在前列，比如他在距离这个故事爆发之前大约10年就告诉过我有关爱泼斯坦岛（Epstein Island）的情况。我不知道他是如何发现的，但他确实知道。那个故事在证据出来之前一直被视为阴谋论，如果那个故事早点公之于众，说不定对公众来说是一件好事，可以更早地制止住它。因此，我认为你不能仅凭先入为主的观点就断定某人是个阴谋论者，然后在互联网上给他们贴上污名。
One other data point I want to bring up is that something that Elon mentioned is that he looked at the Twitter tools, the admin tools, to seek to look at Alex Jones's account. And the third strike he received that caused him to be banned from the Twitter platform by the former management was he actually insulted a reporter, which was a very borderline case.
我还想提及的另一个数据点是，埃隆提到他曾使用Twitter的管理工具来查看亚历克斯·琼斯的账户。而导致他被前管理团队封禁在Twitter平台的第三个原因是他实际上侮辱了一位记者，这算是一个非常模糊的案例。
So the things that you're saying that he was banned for war and even the reason he was banned. Yeah, no, that's true. I think, so that's why I was framing it to you as, this is the issue that I think and maybe what some people are missing here. A mentally ill person like himself, if he's admitted to mental illness and substance abuse, when they go on these tirades or they go off their meds or whatever it is, or they're just evil, and they do this for ratings to make money, it starts to cause real world harm. People start showing up on these people's doorsteps.
所以，你所说的是他因为战争被禁止，甚至被禁止的原因。是的，没错。我认为，所以我向你这样提出问题，这就是我认为的问题，或许有些人在这里没有意识到。像他这样的一个精神病患者，如果他承认自己患有精神病和药物滥用问题，当他们发表这些激情辞演、停药或者其他行为时，或者他们只是邪恶的，他们这样做是为了收视率和赚钱，这就开始造成现实世界的伤害。人们开始出现在这些人的门前。
And so then are you going to wait 10 years for the courts to do this $1.5 billion judgment and then make the decision while real world harm is occurring. And if you own the platform, my belief is you have a higher standard, obviously believe in freedom of speech, he can make his own website. But if you own the platform and the platform enables him to reach a large number of people and those people are being harmed and parents' doors are being knocked on demanding to see their children because Alex Jones said that child is still alive and they're trying to take our guns. And he knows his fans are crazy. There's responsibility that comes from it and there's responsibility that comes with owning a platform like this.
那么，你会等待法院花费十年时间来执行这1.5亿美元的判决，并且在现实世界中不断发生实际伤害时才做出决定吗？如果你拥有这个平台，我相信你有更高的标准，显然也相信言论自由，他可以建立自己的网站。但如果你拥有这个平台，并且这个平台使他能够接触到大量的人，并且这些人受到了伤害，家长们被敲门要求看他们的孩子，因为Alex Jones说那个孩子还活着，他们试图拿走我们的枪支。他知道他的粉丝有些疯狂。这就需要承担责任，拥有这样一个平台就需要承担责任。
I know Elon's going full freedom of speech, but I would be very careful about this. Steve Scalise, the House Republican whip, was shot by a crazy Bernie Sanders supporter. Does that blame go to Bernie Sanders? I think we have to separate you have to there is hold on there. There is a legal standard for incitement. Right. There's a legal standard for judging that. You're saying that these crazy people were incited, but there is actually a legal way of determining that. I don't think that's been proven. I would do a common sense one, which is, do we see real world happening? I would just use common sense. Do we see real world happening? Okay, real world is happening. We own the platform. We need to stop this, which is what happened. That's a judgment standard, right? Yeah, I would make the judgment. If I was the CEO, I'd make the judgment and I would make the judgment based on the courts are going to take years to adjudicate this and it's my platform. I don't want this happening. I would operationalize a content moderation policy based on first moment case law.
我知道埃隆正在全面实行言论自由，但我对此非常谨慎。众议院共和党党鞭史蒂夫·斯卡里斯被一个疯狂的伯尼·桑德斯支持者射击。这种责任要归咎于伯尼·桑德斯吗？我认为我们需要区分，你必须要停下。煽动言论是有法律标准的。是的，有法律标准用于判断。你说这些疯子受到了煽动，但实际上有确定的法律方法来判断这一点。我认为这还没有得到证明。我会遵循常识，看看现实世界是否发生了类似的情况。我只会运用常识。我们是否看到实际发生的情况？好的，现实世界正在发生。我们拥有这个平台。我们需要阻止这种情况发生，这正是发生的事情。这是一个判断标准，对吗？是的，如果我是CEO，我会根据法院需要多年来裁决这个问题，而且这是我的平台。我不希望这种情况发生。我会根据最新的判例法制定一个内容管理政策。
You're right that you can't always wait for the courts to adjudicate it. There's going to be judgment calls. I would have been fine. I think with the suspension of Alex Jones in that context, because it does seem pretty egregious and he's apologized for it. The question is whether there should be lifetime bans and I'm pretty much I think I'm against lifetime bans. I'm okay with timeouts. I'm okay with suspensions for egregious behavior. When somebody has apologized, they've I mean, had to pay. I mean, I think he's been bankrupted. He's had to pay all these fines. I think he's paid his price to society, so to speak. And he's admitted he was wrong. The question is, you solve the lifetime ban. It seems to me he's acknowledged this mistake. If he doesn't like this again, then you can suspend him. Maybe you do the ban, but I do believe in giving people a second chances. And I'm just sort of viscerally against the lifetime banning people.
你说得对，我们不能总是等待法院来裁决。这其中会有判断的。就我而言，我觉得在那种情况下，亚历克斯·琼斯被禁言是可以接受的，因为这看起来相当过分，而且他已经为此道歉了。问题是是否应该对他实施终身禁令，我个人倾向于反对终身禁令。我接受暂时禁言，对于严重不当行为我也可以接受暂时停职。当一个人道歉时，他们已经付出了代价，我指的是他破产了，还被罚款。我认为他已经向社会付出了代价，他也承认自己犯了错。问题是解决终身禁令的方法。在我看来，他已经承认了自己的错误。如果他再犯，那就可以暂时禁言他。或许还可以实行禁令，但我确实相信给予人们第二次机会。我本能地反对终身禁言。
I don't like the standard of what can be deemed dangerous speech, because I think that, as Zach said, there's a clear way to measure whether someone's inciting violence or inciting harm versus saying speech that can be deemed dangerous in some contexts and then not be deemed dangerous after the fact. COVID vaccine conversations are the perfect example, telling people that there's health risks associated with taking a vaccine in the period when everyone was worried about a pandemic, killing us all was deemed too dangerous to allow. And after the fact, it wasn't dangerous because there was suddenly clear evidence that there may be some costs and benefits associated with the vaccines.
我不喜欢可以被认定为危险言论的标准，因为我认为，正如Zach所说的，有一种明确的方法来衡量某人是在煽动暴力或煽动伤害，还是说一些在某些情况下可能被认为是危险的言论，但在事后却不被认为是危险的。COVID疫苗讨论是一个完美的例子，在每个人都担心大流行病时，告诉人们在接种疫苗会有健康风险被认为是太危险而不被允许。而在事后，它又不再被认为是危险的，因为突然出现了明确的证据表明疫苗可能会带来一些成本和好处。
And so I really don't like the standard of dangerous speech. In fact, I think that the biggest changes that are necessary in society initially start this dangerous speech. And then they eventually become true, and then they become a standard, and then things change. My repeated calls for reduction in fiscal spending at the federal level and lack of accountability and fiscal spending at the federal level, by some measure, could be deemed dangerous speech and an incitement against the government. But really, my point is to call out the importance of this like issue. And after the fact, I may be right, I may be wrong, and I need to be able to say that. I think it's critically important to say those sorts of things. And I think that other people in their own domains will find other things that are critically important to say. And that would be deemed by some standard to be dangerous at the time.
所以我真的不喜欢危险言论的标准。实际上，我认为社会最需要的变革最初都起源于这种危险言论。然后它们逐渐变为事实，成为标准，然后事情就会发生变化。我的反复呼吁减少联邦层面的财政支出和缺乏对联邦层面财政支出的问责制，某种程度上可能被视为危险言论和对政府的煽动。但实际上，我的观点是为了强调这个重要问题。事后，我可能是对的，也可能是错的，我需要有能力说出这些。我认为这种说法非常重要。我相信，在他们各自的领域内，其他人也会发现其他重要的事情需要说出来。而那些在当时被某种标准视为危险的事情。
So as much as I have great disdain for certain people and certain things that they may say, I do think that what might be deemed dangerous speech is a critical element of the kind of progressivism that's allowed the United States to prosper. I think it was dangerous speech to promulgate the false conspiracy theory that Trump was an agent of Putin. I mean, that was in the Steele dossier. They basically said that Putin had Compermat on Trump, and Trump was basically working for the Kremlin. I mean, he was a traitor. I mean, what if there were people out there who tried to assassinate the president on the grounds that we can't have a traitor in the White House? That was a private document, right? That wasn't like a public talk. The stealers absolutely leaked during the campaign. You're making my point exactly. It's leaked, right? So there's like a private document by somebody. I edit this. But then it was printed by BuzzFeed. And then once it was in the echo chamber, it was endlessly repeated by the mainstream media. So the idea that like only people like Alex Jones promote conspiracy theories, the mainstream media promotes a lot of conspiracy theories. And some of those theories, if acted upon by crazy people, would be just as dangerous as the things that Alex Jones has said.
尽管我对某些人和他们可能说的某些事情深感厌恶，但我确实认为被视为危险言论的东西是允许美国繁荣的进步主义的重要元素。我认为散布特朗普是普京的代理人的虚假阴谋论是危险的言论。我的意思是，这是在斯蒂尔文件中提到的。他们基本上说普京对特朗普有黑材料，特朗普基本上是在为克里姆林宫工作。我的意思是，他是个叛徒。我的意思是，如果有人试图暗杀总统，理由是我们不能容忍叛徒在白宫，那该怎么办呢？那是一份私人文件，对吧？不像是公众演讲。窃贼们在竞选期间肯定泄露了。你正好证明了我的观点。泄露了，对吧？所以这其实只是某个人的私人文件。而后它被BuzzFeed印出来了。一旦进入回音室，主流媒体就会不断重复。所以像只有亚历克斯·琼斯这样的人会宣传阴谋论的说法是错误的，主流媒体也会宣传很多阴谋论。如果疯狂的人按照其中一些理论行事，那么这些理论就会和亚历克斯·琼斯说过的那些事情一样危险。
We're in hypothetical and but actually, I think you and I are not too far apart. You wanting to take these harms and operationalize them is sort of what I'm saying. And in each of these cases, it's a judgment call. And this is where I think, in many ways, I'm proud of what Elon is doing and saying like freedom of speech is an absolute thing. And that's what the platform is going to be. His right to do it. It's his platform. And so I'm fine with that. I would do something different if it was my platform. Everybody's different. Everybody can take their stance. I would have some basic humanity as my stance. And I'll be willing to give up a little freedom of speech in my restaurant, in my cafe, in order to have it be more delightful for everybody there. I wouldn't go as far as banning people talking about COVID. But yeah, if somebody was trying to claim that parents of murdered children were liars and actors, that would be fine for me to say, yeah, no good.
我们现在是在假设情况下，但事实上，我认为你和我之间并没有太大的差距。你想要将这些伤害具体操作起来，这与我所说的有点类似。在每种情况下，这都是一个判断的问题。在这一点上，我认为埃隆所做的事情很值得骄傲，比如言论自由是一种绝对的权利。这就是平台的目的。他有权利这样做。这是他的平台。所以我对此表示同意。如果这是我的平台，我会做一些不同的事情。每个人都是不同的。每个人都可以采取自己的立场。而我会以一种基本的人性作为我的立场。我愿意在我的餐厅、咖啡馆中放弃一点言论自由，让每个人都能更愉快地享受。我不会禁止人们谈论COVID。但是，如果有人试图声称被谋杀儿童的父母都是骗子和演员，我会认为这是不好的，并表示不赞同。
And then of course, there's Kanye. So you know, Elon banned Kanye. That was under his realm. And this is what Kanye said. And I think this falls into hate speech and real-world harm.
当然，还有坎耶。所以你知道的，埃隆封禁了坎耶。这是在他的权力范围之内。以下是坎耶说的话。我认为这属于仇恨言论和对现实世界的伤害。
I'm a bit sleepy tonight. But when I wake up, I'm going death, death, con three on Jewish people. The funny thing is I actually can't be anti-Semitic because black people are actually Jew. Also, you guys have played with me and tried blackball anyone who ever opposes your agenda.
今晚我有点困，但当我醒来时，我会对犹太人持坚定的态度。有趣的是，我实际上不能成为反犹太主义者，因为黑人实际上是犹太人的一部分。此外，你们一直与我作对，试图封锁任何反对你们议程的人。
So when you see this tweet, would you have banned him sex? Or is that a life span? I'm not a given him a timeout. I think his family wanted him to get a timeout because he was having an episode. I certainly wouldn't give him a lifetime ban.
当你看到这条推文时，你会禁止他的性行为吗？还是说这是一生的限制？我并没有给他暂时的禁令。我认为他的家人希望他暂时被禁止，因为他正在经历一段病情。我肯定不会给他终身禁令。
Give me your or something. Look, I don't really know this Alex Jones guy. I certainly don't know him in person. I don't even listen him. It's not a show I'm interested in even now.
给我你的什么东西吧。听着，我不太了解这个亚历克斯·琼斯（Alex Jones）这个人。我确实不认识他，甚至从不听他的节目。这并不是我现在感兴趣的节目。
I only know. I like knowing the truth. I like hearing facts. And I don't believe that factional information like the lab leak theory should be censored by labeling it a conspiracy theory. For example, but what I would say about Alex Jones is there is some humanity in allowing him a forum to apologize for what he did and acknowledge his mistake and explain why he thought what he did and why he was wrong.
我只知道一件事。我喜欢了解真相。我喜欢听到事实。我不相信类似实验室泄漏理论这样的派系信息应被贴上阴谋论的标签而被删帖。举个例子，但对于亚历克斯·琼斯，我认为给他一个道歉的机会，承认自己的错误并解释为什么做出那样的举动以及为何错误，其中蕴含着一些人性。
And that's what he did on X. And I went on the Twitter spaces and I asked him a follow-up question, which he wouldn't answer. I said, how have you changed your behavior? You have it. Honestly, Jake, I asked what can you answer it? You came bounding in in the last five minutes. I didn't get a scam. I'm a bunch of questions about what he did when it already been covered at the top of the pod.
就是这样，他在X时做了这件事。后来我参加了Twitter空间，问他了一个后续问题，可他没回答。我问他，你改变了行为吗？你没有。老实说，杰克，我问你可以回答吗？你在最后五分钟才跳进来。我没得到满意的答案。他之前在节目一开始已经涵盖了很多关于他所做的事的问题。
And I listened to it and he had not answered the question, how is your behavior changed? He doesn't want to talk about it. But the moment he was not the first half hour relitigating Sandy Hook, and you weren't aware of that. It was the first 10 minutes. He won't answer questions on how he would change his behavior. And so I think that's one of the things I would want to see from him. How have you changed your behavior and how you do shows? And I don't think he's answered that question.
我听了他的回答，他没有回答问题：“你的行为有什么改变？”他不想谈论这个。但在那个时刻，他不再是前半个小时纠缠“桑迪胡克”事件，而你没有意识到这一点。这只花了10分钟。他不会回答有关如何改变他的行为的问题。所以我认为这是我想要从他那里看到的其中之一。你改变了自己的行为和做节目的方式吗？我不认为他回答了那个问题。
Anyway, we're going to disagree on this one. Any final thoughts, Chamapas, we wrap here on this issue? The free speech litmus test is very simple. It's this exact thing. It's when the person that you dislike says the thing that you find very displeasing. What do you do? And I am a free speech absolutist on this. I just think it's a very slippery slope, and I don't think we're very capable of making these delineations. And so I agree the right solution are timeouts. But lifetime bans, I think, again, go down this path where human judgment gets involved, and then it's about the person in charge, and then it becomes a power play, and then it eventually always gets corrupted.
无论如何，我们对这个问题肯定有不同意见。Chamapas，在这个问题上我们有什么最后的想法吗？言论自由的检验非常简单，就是当你不喜欢的人说令你非常不悦的话时，你会怎么做？在这个问题上，我是完全支持言论自由的。我觉得这是一个非常容易滑向极端的道路，我认为我们很难准确划定这些界限。因此，我同意超时暂离是一个正确的解决方案。但是，终身封禁我认为会陷入人类判断的问题，进而成为一种权力斗争，最后总是变得腐败。
So I can hold two thoughts in my head. One, Alex Jones should be able to say what he thinks, and two, it was disgusting, and he should be ashamed of what he said. Yeah, you know, the ban's doubling every time is probably a good precedent as well. So I mean, we should do it like we do at our poker game that fines go up. Yeah, foam penalty, doubles. Experiential back off.
我能同时保留两种想法。首先，亚历克斯·琼斯应该有权说出他的想法；其次，他说的话很恶心，他应该为自己的言论感到羞耻。是的，你知道，每次禁令加倍可能是一个好的先例。所以，我想我们应该像玩扑克游戏一样，处罚的金额要翻倍。是的，罚金加倍，经验趋退。
I mean, you're going to put your phone down and play the goddamn game if it gets to 800 or 1600, because that stings a little bit. So there it is. Yeah, totally does. But maybe that's the right solution, Jason, is like you have a finding mechanism somehow, and it just like it increases. And so there's a financial penalty of nothing else as well as a timeout when you violate these laws. At least that's a scalable way to solve the problem in a way that's hard to corrupt and gain.
我的意思是，如果价格达到800或者1600的话，你肯定会放下手机开始玩这个该死的游戏，因为这有点刺痛人。所以就是这样。是的，完全正确。但也许这就是正确的解决办法，Jason，也许你可以设计一种找回机制，它可以自动提高价格。这样，违反这些规定就不仅仅会有超时处罚，还会有经济惩罚。至少这样解决问题的方法更具有可伸缩性，并且难以被腐败和利益所影响。
But if it goes down to the person to an individual or a group of people's judgments as we saw with the previous management of Twitter, I think it's going to be a very difficult problem. I don't think that those were bad people, but I think that they were led astray.
但是如果判断权落到一个人或一群人身上，正如我们在Twitter以前的管理中所看到的那样，我认为这会是一个非常困难的问题。我不认为那些人是坏人，但我认为他们被带偏了。
Yeah, I mean, Nick, do you have that clip from Rogan? Because when I listened to this clip from Rogan, it did have an impact on what I thought, because it does show like 20 years. It does show the human complexity. And again, you're judging him based on the worst thing he ever did. And Rogan presents a more balanced viewpoint about this guy. Again, I have no dog in this hunt. I don't really care about Alex Jones, but I'm just saying that if we're going to sit in judgment of people, I think maybe we should have a more balanced view because I mean, it does bias the conversation to play at the clip at the worst thing he ever did. Let's play Rogan for a second.
是的，我的意思是，Nick，你有Rogan那个片段吗？因为当我听Rogan的这个片段时，它对我的想法产生了影响，因为它确实展示了20年的东西。它确实展示了人类的复杂性。再次强调，你是基于他所做的最糟糕的事情来评判他。而Rogan则提供了一个更加平衡的观点。再说一次，我对这个争议不关心。我真的不在乎Alex Jones，但我只是想说，如果我们要对人作出评判，也许我们应该有一个更加平衡的观点，因为我是说，播放那个片段只会让对话偏向他所做的最糟糕的事情。让我们播放一下Rogan的片段。
I think it's interesting. Look at the way people look at Alex Jones now, because Alex Jones has been on my podcast a few times. The people that have watched those podcasts think he's hilarious. And they think that he definitely f***ed up with that whole Sandy Hook thing. But he's right more than he's wrong. And he's not an evil guy. He's just a guy who's had some psychotic breaks in his life.
我认为这很有趣。看看人们现在对待亚历克斯·琼斯的方式，因为他曾在我的播客中露面过几次。那些观看过那些播客的人觉得他很滑稽。他们认为他在整个桑迪·胡克事件中绝对搞砸了。但与错误相比，他更多时候是正确的。而且他并不是一个邪恶的人。他只是在生活中经历了一些精神崩溃。
He's had some genuine mental health issues that he's addressed. He's had some serious bouts of alcoholism, some serious bouts of substance abuse. And they've contributed to some very poor thinking. But if you know the guy, if you get to know him, I've known him for more than 20 years. And if you know him on podcast, you realize he is genuinely trying to unearth some things that are genuinely disturbing for most people. Like, this is a guy that was telling me about Epstein's island decade ago, at least.
他确实有一些精神健康问题，并加以应对。他曾经有过严重的酗酒问题，以及药物滥用的严重阶段。这些问题导致他的思维变得很糟糕。但是如果你认识这个人，如果你了解他，我认识他已经20多年了。如果你在播客上了解他，你会意识到他真诚地试图揭示一些对大多数人来说确实令人不安的事情。就像，至少十年前，他就告诉我关于爱泼斯坦岛的事情。
I mean, this platforming mentally ill people during an episode is a whole nother can of worms. I told this to Alex Reedman when he had Kanye on during that episode. I said, I think it's a very bad idea to spend two hours with somebody who's on an episode. And sure enough, what did he do? More anti-Semitic insanity on his podcast. And I just told Lex, like, leave the guy alone. It's not worth it.
我的意思是，这个平台在精神异常发作期间接纳患者，这是另外一个问题。当Alex Reedman在那一期节目邀请Kanye时，我就告诉过他这件事。我说，和一个正在发作的人花两个小时在一起是个非常糟糕的主意。果不其然，他的播客上又出现了更多反犹太的疯言疯语。我只是告诉Lex，让那个人别再多管闲事了，不值得这样做。
Let him get help. Look, I think I think you have a point there. But, you know, that that will be an argument for a temporary suspension, not a ban, in my opinion. Yeah. All right, Saks, in other news, something insane has happened on the internet. It's never happened before. But somebody has apologized for getting something wrong. This is breaking news. We're in year 34 of the internet. And somebody says that, is it my wife? Is it my wife? Did she know? She's never gotten anything wrong. I've listened. I've been there for this whole relationship. She has been a hundred out of a hundred times correct on the issues. Frustrating. It's so frustrating. I mean, she makes a mistake. Well, no, but it hasn't happened yet. It's actually paradoxically same with my wife. She's been right for 22 years. No, my wife has been wrong four times, and I've gotten three on voice memo. I taped them. I pull out the phone and I'm like, hold on, I need you to say it again.
让他寻求帮助。瞧，我认为你有一些道理。但是，在我看来，这将成为暂时禁止的争论，而不是禁令。是的，好吧，萨克斯，在其他新闻中，互联网上发生了一些疯狂的事情。这以前从未发生过。但是有人因为弄错了什么而道歉。这是突发新闻。我们已经进入第34个互联网年了。有人这样说，是我妻子吗？她从来没有犯过错误。我听了。我在整个关系中都在那里。她在问题上100次中100次正确。令人沮丧。真是太烦人了。我是说，她犯了一个错误。噢，不，但是还没有发生。奇怪的是，我的妻子也是这样。她已经对了22年了。不，我的妻子犯错了四次，我还提供了三次语音备忘录。我录下来了。我拿出手机，说：“等一下，我需要你再说一遍”。
Yeah. So I've gotten three on voice, but it's because it's been only three. Did those three have something to do with deciding to marry you or to move in with you and make children and start a life together? It's so frustrating. How can one person be so wrong, i.e. me all the time? Well, I mean, at least you're self-aware. Everybody loves self-aware trauma. It is. Oh, God. It's a new trend. We're on. But yes, Naseem Taleb, publicly admitted. We're going to pull it up here, Sacks. Here we go. He publicly admitted that techno watermelon. That's your name, Sacks. That was his insult. I don't really understand the insult. I never understood it either. I think he's saying your head is the size of a watermelon and that you're involved in technology. That's my interpretation. I don't think you have a melon head. Or does it mean like I'm green on the outside and right on the inside or something like somehow I'm supporting communism or I don't really understand it. But that has come up. Well, listen, it's better than mine. I'm a psychotic ignoramus. So he's.
是的。所以，我在语音方面取得了三次进步，但这是因为只有这三次。这三次是否与决定和你结婚、搬到一起生子并开始共度余生有关呢？这让我很沮丧。一个人怎么会一直这么错呢，就是我。好吧，起码你有自我意识。每个人都喜欢有自我意识的创伤。没错。噢，天啊，这是一种新趋势。我们在上面。但是是的，纳西姆·塔利布公开承认了。萨克斯，我们来看看这个。我们拿出来了。他公开承认说，科技西瓜。这是你的名字，萨克斯。我真的不明白这个侮辱是什么意思。我从来不明白。我想他是说你的头像西瓜一样大，而且你与科技有关。这是我的解释。我不认为你有个西瓜脑袋。或者它是指我外表上是绿色的，但内心是正确的，或者以某种方式我支持共产主义，我真的不明白。但是这个问题已经出现过。好吧，听着，这总比我的好。我是个精神错乱的无知者。所以他。
Yes, he retracted that for some reason. Not yet. Not yet. But at some point, I'm sure he. But here it is, Fives. Well, you just said I can see that David Sacks is correct about the relative strength of the parties in the Ukraine war and I was wrong. All caps. Russia is not as weak as it seemed as staying power. This means a settlement is likely outcome. Anyway, it's so rare on the internet for anyone to admit they were wrong. What they usually do is just memory hold, which is why I always like to produce receipts. I only do that for the people who strongly denounce me about something and then I end up being right. They never concede. It's not just about the fact that I was right. It's about the fact that they attacked me personally and they never come back and apologize or correct a record. Tlaev did that. So kudos to him.
是的，出于某种原因，他撤回了那个观点。还没有。还没有。但我肯定他会在某个时刻明白的。但是，这里有证据，Fives。嗯，你刚才说我同意David Sacks的观点，即乌克兰战争中各方相对实力的问题，我错了。全是大写。俄罗斯并不像它表面上看起来那么弱。这意味着可能会有一个解决方案。不管怎样，在互联网上很少有人愿意承认自己错了。他们通常会抹掉记忆，这就是为什么我总是喜欢保留证据。我只对那些强烈谴责我然后我最后却被证明是对的人才这么做。他们从来不会承认错误。这不仅仅是因为我是对的。这还涉及到他们对我个人的攻击，他们从来不会回来道歉或更正记录。Tlaev就做到了。所以向他致敬。
I mean, I admit when I read this, I was like, I guess, I'm like, what's the gotcha? It's going way for it. I thought a trapdoor is going to open under my feet. I thought a cartoon piano was going to fall in my head. I just thought this can't be it. And the bad note, that was it. That was it. Well, there it is. Kudos.
我的意思是，当我读到这个的时候，我就觉得，我猜，我就觉得，这是什么陷阱？它正在朝着那个方向去。我以为脚下会突然出现一个陷阱门。我以为会有一个卡通钢琴掉在我的头上。我只是觉得事情不会就这么简单。然后，糟糕的结局，就是这样了。就是这样了。好吧，没了。真不错。
So by the way, just, I mean, the reason why I understood what was going to happen in this, counter offensive and why the war is not going to go as well as people thought, it's not because I purport to be some sort of Ukraine expert or foreign affairs expert. I mainly just spent the time to figure out who the real experts were. And the real experts are never the people who the media tells you. You actually have to spend the time to look at people's track records. What they said in the past, did it come true or not? You know, it's basically a falsifiability standard. Look at what they predicted. Look at what actually happened. And you can figure out who the real experts are. And that's right. In the case of Ukraine, it was possible to figure out who are the foreign policy scholars who got this right, who were the military bloggers, who were accurately reporting information, and who were the ones who are basically putting out propaganda. If you spend the time to do that on virtually any issue, you can effectively become an expert.
所以顺便说一下，我是指，我明白为什么在这次反攻中以及为什么战争不会像人们想象的那样顺利进行，并不是因为我自认为是乌克兰专家或外交专家。我主要花时间去找到真正的专家是谁。而真正的专家从来都不是媒体告诉你的那些人。你实际上必须花时间去查看人们的履历。看看他们过去说过些什么，是不是成真了？你知道，这基本上是一个可证伪的标准。看一下他们的预测，再看看实际发生了什么。你就能找出真正的专家是谁。没错，在乌克兰的情况下，找到谁是那些正确预测外交政策学者，谁是准确报导信息的军事博主，以及谁是只发布宣传的人是有可能的。如果你花时间在几乎任何问题上去做这样的事情，你就能有效地成为一个专家。
It's a great point, Seth. Really good point. You have to find your own process in front of the truth today, because I don't think you can trust the journalists out there to do it. 100%. And by the way, as a VC, people say, well, what does a VC think? You know, in a way, what VCs do is when you get interested in a topic, you kind of go deep and try to simulate a lot of information. You try to figure out who the real experts in the space so that those are the people I should listen to and then you develop a take. It's not the worst skill set in the world for doing a pod or tweeting out hot takes on on Twitter. Again, I'm not saying I'm an expert. I'm just somebody who is independent-minded enough to get to the bottom of an issue without disrelying on what I'm supposed to believe. And I just try to figure out who the real experts are.
这是一个很好的观点，Seth。真的是个很好的观点。在今天面对真相时，你必须找到自己的处理方式，因为我不认为你可以相信现在的记者们能够做到。百分之百的准确。顺便说一下，作为一个风险投资者，人们会问，那么一个风投者会怎么想呢？你知道，在某种程度上，风投者所做的就是当你对某个话题产生兴趣时，会深入了解并模拟大量的信息。你会尝试找出哪些是真正在这个领域中的专家，这样他们就是我应该倾听的人，然后你会形成一种看法。这并不是世界上最差的技能，用于制作播客或在Twitter上发表热议。再次强调，我并不是说我是专家。我只是一个足够有独立思考能力的人，能够在不依赖我应该相信的内容的基础上，深入了解一个问题的底层。我只是尽力去找出谁是真正的专家。
All right, producer Nick, are you there? You did a tweet about questions that people might want to have to ask the besties here as we wrap up this up. So we'll take two. Your two favorite questions, producer.
好的，制片人尼克，你在吗？你发了一条推文，问人们可能想要在这里问最好的朋友们的问题，因为我们即将结束这个节目。所以我们会选两个问题。请问你最喜欢的两个问题是什么，制片人？
Thoughts on the Harvard board standing behind President Gay despite her transgressions? Okay, that's a good question. That's a good one for Chama. Here's what I'll say. I think that the Harvard board was probably in a really difficult position in the following way. You know, when you hire somebody and you realize that that person has some faults, you have three choices, right? One is to fire them. Two is to be unequivocal in their support. And three is to basically give a milk toast, CYA kind of a statement to give yourself time. The reason why I think that President Gay wasn't fired was probably because the board for whatever reason didn't want to seem like they were cowtowing to Bill Ackman and all the other people that were asking for her resignation. But what they didn't do is equally important. They may not have fired her, but what they also didn't do was come out with an unequivocal statement of support. I think it was kind of a little bit wishy-washy and acknowledging her mistakes, which seems to be a setup to allow her to basically make a couple more mistakes so that then they can fire her and they can all seem like they did the right thing. So I suspect that that's what happens, but she probably won't be in that job in a year from now. Or, you know, she kind of muddles along and in two or three years, she quote unquote, retires to spend more time with her family.
对哈佛董事会支持Gay校长尽管她做错了事情的看法？好吧，这是一个好问题。这个问题很适合Chama回答。这是我的观点。我认为哈佛董事会可能处在一个非常困难的境地。你知道，当你雇用一个人，意识到他有一些缺点时，你有三个选择，对吧？一是解雇他们。二是毫不含糊地支持他们。三是基本上发表一份模棱两可的声明，以争取时间。我认为 Gay校长没有被解雇的原因可能是因为董事会出于某种原因不想看起来像是迎合 Bill Ackman 和其他要求她辞职的人。但他们所未做的同样重要。他们可能没有解雇她，但他们也没有出面给出明确的支持声明。我觉得这有点暧昧，承认她的错误，这似乎是为了让她再犯几个错误，然后他们可以解雇她，看起来他们做了正确的事情。所以我猜想这可能会发生，但是也许她明年就不会再担任这个职位了。或者，她可能继续勉强坚持几年，然后以更多时间陪伴家人为由“退休”。
Anyone else want to get it on this sex?
还有其他人想加入这场性别表达活动吗？
Yeah, I mean, I think this university president's debate's been a little bit of a rorschach test. And I've seen people that I generally agree with fall into one of two camps. Some see it as a free speech issue. Other people see it as a kind of woke double standards or DEI issue.
是的，我的意思是，我觉得这位大学校长的辩论有点像罗夏克测试。我注意到有些我通常赞同的人分成了两派。一些人认为这是一个言论自由问题，另一些人则认为这是一个觉醒（Woke）的双重标准或多元包容性（DEI）问题。
I think for those who see it as a free speech issue, they're emphasizing the motivations of people like Elise Stefanik, the person who asked the university president the question in saying when she said, basically, the question was, does your code of conduct allow calls for genocide of Jews? And their argument is that's a loaded question because there is not an epidemic on campus of people calling for genocide of Jews. And so this is basically all kind of an invented hysteria. And the purpose of it is to suppress debate about this Israel Hamas war in Gaza and it's designed to expand campus speech codes so that it's harder for Palestinian supporters to protest in favor of their cause. So that's one way of looking at it.
对于那些把这个问题看作是一种言论自由的问题的人来说，他们强调了类似埃丽斯·斯特凡尼克这样的人的动机，就像是她问校长的那个问题，基本上是问，你们的行为准则是否允许呼吁对犹太人进行种族灭绝？他们的论点是这是个有意引起争议的问题，因为校园里没有人普遍呼吁对犹太人实施种族灭绝。所以这基本上是一种人为制造的恐慌。这样做的目的是压制关于以巴战争中以色列哈马斯战争的辩论，并设计用于扩大校园的言论规范，使巴勒斯坦支持者更难以支持自己的事业。这是一种看待问题的方式。
My view on that is if it ends up being the case that campus speech codes get expanded in that way, that'd be a bad thing. I don't think we need to restrict speech on campus. So I agree with them on that point.
我对此的观点是，如果校园言论规范会以这种方式扩大，那将是一件坏事。我认为我们不需要限制校园内的言论自由。所以在这一点上，我同意他们的看法。
However, there is a different way of looking at this, which is the motivations of the university presidents and answering that question. And yes, it was a loaded question, but they flubbed the answer. And the question is why? Because as we talked about last week, if they were asked about calls for the murder of any other group, a racial group or trans people or something like that, Asian people, I don't think their answer would have been the same. And I do think that that comes back to the fact that they have a preconceived notion of which groups deserve protection, and which ones don't. And that is a double standard. And I think anything we can do to get rid of that poisonous ideology that wants to treat people differently on campus, I think is a good thing. And so I support what Bill Ackman is doing on that basis. But if Bill Ackman goes too far and demands restrictions on the ability of students to protest, then I think it would be a bad thing and that's going too far. So this would be a great thing to ask him, like what his motivations are, that if he comes on the pod?
然而，有一种不同的看法，那就是对大学校长的动机进行考虑，并回答这个问题。的确，这是一个有偏见的问题，但他们没有回答好。问题是为什么？因为正如我们上周谈到的，如果他们被问及对任何其他群体的谋杀呼声，无论是种族群体、跨性别人群还是亚洲人，我不认为他们的回答会是一样的。而我认为这源于他们对哪些群体应该受到保护有预设的看法，以及哪些群体不应该受到保护。这是一种双重标准。我认为我们应该尽力摆脱这种在校园里以不同方式对待人的有害思想。所以我支持比尔·阿克曼在这方面所做的事情。但是如果比尔·阿克曼走得太远，要求限制学生抗议的能力，那我认为那就是过分了，是走得太远了。所以，如果他来参加节目，询问他的动机会是一个很好的事情。
I think that's crazy is just the crazy hypocrisy. Like these are the same people who were firing people or not letting them speak on campus. If they had a microaggression where they didn't, they missed gender at somebody or they used a different pronoun or they had a different feeling about what defines a woman versus a man or gender differences, whatever. Their massive intolerance and the crazy hypocrisy, which we're alluding to here, Saks, is the thing that I think has broken everybody's brain. This is bizarre.
我认为这简直是疯狂的虚伪。就好像这些人是那些解雇或不允许他们在校园发言的人。如果他们犯了一个微攻击，他们错过了对某人的性别或者使用了不同的代词，或者他们对于定义女性和男性或性别差异有不同的看法，无论是什么情况。他们的无法容忍和疯狂的虚伪，正是我们在这里暗示的问题，Saks，我认为已经使每个人都感到困惑。这太离奇了。
And the DI stuff is a road to know where I tweeted today about the absolute grift that was going on in tech not long ago, which was call out a company, venture firm, whatever it is for their DEI stats. Then quietly contact them after you've done this brig of dooning of them and say, hey, we can solve your problem, hire us as consultants and speakers to come in and fix your DEI and tell you what you've done wrong, and then publicly come out and I saw this happen, publicly come out and then tell the same group, hey, this person is now an ally. Rinson repeat, it was a crazy grift and it's all coming out.
而DI（多元和包容性）的事情是一条我今天在推特上谈论过的路，谈论的是不久前在科技界出现的绝对的欺诈行为，即指责某家公司、风险投资公司或其他机构的DEI数据。然后，在你对他们进行指责和批评之后，悄悄地与他们联系，说：“嘿，我们可以解决你们的问题，雇佣我们作为顾问和演讲者来改善你们的DEI，并告诉你们你们做错了什么。”然后公开宣布，我亲眼目睹了这种情况，公开宣布然后告诉同一群人：“嘿，这个人现在是我们的盟友了。”这种反复循环的行为是一种疯狂的欺诈，并且现在所有这些都被揭露出来了。
Now and there's a- Yeah, that deal acumen thing, Jay Kalbatt, you retweeted is crazy, that story. Yeah, so we could just go down this rabbit hole forever. But I think you call a call to Saks, I call it a road to know where a dead end. Identity politics and DEI, it's just a dead end. We just start judging people based on any criteria other than their character and performance in the world.
现在有一个-是的，那个关于交易才能的东西，Jay Kalbatt，你转发的那个故事太疯狂了。是的，所以我们可能会一直陷入这个兔子洞中。但我认为你将其称为与Saks打电话，我称之为一条通向无处但是死胡同的道路。身份政治和多元包容性，只是一种死胡同。我们应该根据人们在世界上的品格和表现来评判他们，而不是根据任何其他标准。
Do we know if there was a response by MIT, is this one? MIT?
我们是否知道麻省理工学院对此做出了回应，这是回复吗？麻省理工学院？
Yeah, I don't think yet there has been. So anyway, we'll cover that story next week for sure.
是的，我认为目前还没有。无论如何，我们下周一定会报道那个故事。
I think what Bill Acumen is doing is brave because he is taking on DEI and that is historically, that's been one of the most dangerous things you can do. I mean, that is what people get canceled for. Now, I know there are people who I am fans of, like Leggling Greenwald has been very critical of Acumen because he thinks that Acumen is trying to restrict free speech and prevent, again, the propalistinian cause from protesting or saying its piece. And I guess Bill can clarify that. But I think this issue is less about foreign policy and more about domestic policy, these DEI policies. And finally, we have someone who's willing to take it on and challenge it, challenge it at an ideological level and then challenge it at a just griff level.
我认为比尔·阿卡曼所做的事情是勇敢的，因为他在处理多元包容性（DEI）问题上正在承担风险，而从历史上看，这是你能做的最危险的事情之一。我的意思是，人们正是因为这个原因而被取消的。现在，我知道有一些我喜欢的人，比如列克林·格林瓦尔德（Leggling Greenwald），对阿卡曼非常批评，因为他认为阿卡曼试图限制言论自由，并阻止巴勒斯坦事业进行抗议或发表意见。我想比尔可以阐明这一点。但我认为这个问题与外交政策关系较小，更多地与国内政策有关，即这些多元包容性政策。最后，我们有个人愿意接手并对其提出挑战，从意识形态层面和合理性层面对其进行质疑。
Yeah, shout out to Brian Armstrong. He got this right and he went right up the hill and took the arrows for it. And I think we've turned a corner. The tweet I did today, I would not have done two years ago because I just didn't want to risk my firm or the companies I work with to kind of expose that griff because it could blow back on people. But now I feel totally comfortable doing it.
是的，向布赖恩·阿姆斯特朗致以致敬。他做对了，并且为此冒尖刺，勇往直前。我认为我们已经转了个弯。我今天发的推特，两年前我是不会发的，因为我不想冒险让我的公司或者我合作的公司暴露出那种隐患，因为这可能对人们造成反噬。但现在，我完全可以放心去做这件事了。
So who bears at 70? Well, that all. We're going to 76 puts me in. That's for sure. He's got a few money now. Acumen's got a lot of firepower. You know, that bond call was totally right. You know, the 10 years now. So say, yeah, I will say that does your bank account does give you the ability to go.
那么，谁要承受70岁的责任呢？嗯，就是这样。我们将要到76岁时，我就要负起这个责任了。这是肯定的。他现在有点钱了。Acumen拥有很强大的实力。你知道，那个债券预测完全正确。你知道，现在有十年了。所以说，是的，我会说你的银行账户确实给你能力去做。
Okay, final question, please, we have what we must wrap. We must have a final question. Please throw it to Friedberg. First, I got Friedberg involved early on offense today. It's a great shot from mom cooks fast and slow on X for Friedberg, I guess. What is the correct way to hire kids out of school now that an elite university degree tells you very little about the applicant. And will you follow this path in your companies? Oh, I have a great answer for Tim. Go ahead. No, free bird. Go to the schools with co op. Why? Because it allows you to evaluate these kids in C2 on a real time basis without an obligation to hire. You can find the ones that can really do the work have the energy.
好的，最后一个问题，请问，我们还剩下什么需要总结的？我们必须有一个最后的问题。请把它交给弗里德伯格。首先，我早早地让弗里德伯格参与到了今天的进攻中。这是妈妈在X上快速和慢慢烹饪出的一道极好的菜肴，我猜想这是为了弗里德伯格准备的。现在，我们雇佣刚刚从学校毕业的孩子的正确方式是什么，因为一流大学的学位对申请人来说意义并不大。你会在你的公司中采取这种方法吗？噢，我对蒂姆有一个绝佳的回答。请讲。不，牵扯到他吧。去学校选人是为什么呢？因为这样可以让你实时地评估这些孩子的能力，而不需要雇佣他们。你可以找到那些真正能够胜任工作并有能量的人。
Explain program, please. It's for people. I went to a co op school, University of Waterloo in Canada, the way that it works there, not everywhere, but there at least, is you go to school for the first eight months, and then you never get a break. You're either in working for four months, or you're in school for four months, and you go back and forth until you graduate. So instead of graduating in four years, you graduate in five, but you graduate with basically two full years of work experience. And depending on the employers that you work at, you typically get two to three job offers from those folks if you do a good job.
请解释一下这个项目。这是给人们的。我在加拿大的滑铁卢大学上过一个合作学校，那里的运作方式（并非所有地方都是这样），你先上八个月的学，然后就再也没有休息了。你会接下来的四个月要么工作要么上学，如此往复直至毕业。所以你的学业不是四年就能毕业，而是五年，不过你将获得两年全日制工作经验。根据你工作的雇主，如果你表现良好，通常会获得两到三个工作机会。
When I was helping to build Facebook, we went there. We had never hired an intern before, and we started to hire people. And I think now, it happened in Microsoft, it happened at Google. I think it's happened at Facebook. If you look at the number of kids that work at those schools now from co op schools, they're higher than any other school. There's a bunch of schools in the United States that have co op, but I would go and find those schools and hire those kids. Freeberg, any thoughts? You're now running a company. You're back in the saddle. How are you going to hire people? And tell everybody the name of the company again. It's called O'Halo. O'Halo, not Muhalo. O'Halo. And you're hiring a student. O'Halo was taken. Who owns that domain name now? I still have it. Yeah, somebody wants to make it happen. I have Muhalo and I have Cacua. Happy to sell it to somebody if they want to. But tell us, what's your hiring criteria and how do you think about this now? I'd like to start an enterprise software business called Cacua. It means to help or to guide in Hawaiian. So probably the third or fourth most important word. Go ahead, Freeberg, please.
在我帮助建设Facebook的时候，我们去了那里。我们以前从未雇佣过实习生，但我们开始招聘人员了。我认为现在微软、谷歌也发生了这种情况。我想Facebook也是如此。如果你看看那些合作学校中的学生数量，它们要比其他任何学校都要多。美国有很多学校都有合作项目，但我会去找那些学校，雇佣那些学生。Freeberg，有什么想法吗？你现在在经营一家公司。你将如何招聘员工？再告诉大家一次公司的名称，它叫O'Halo。不是Muhalo，是O'Halo。你正在招聘一名学生。O'Halo已经被注册了。现在谁拥有那个域名？我还拥有它。是的，如果有人愿意实现它，我愿意出售Muhalo和Cacua。但请告诉我们，你的招聘标准是什么，你现在如何考虑这个问题？我想开办一家名为Cacua的企业软件公司。在夏威夷语中，它的意思是帮助或指导，可能是第三或第四重要的词。请继续，Freeberg。
I have criteria around raw horsepower skills or experience and then motivation. And I have systems for how we try and assess those and then matching our principles. It's kind of the fourth bucket of things. Horsepower you can test skills is based on experience and fits the role and the need. But motivation is one that there's a lot of question marks around. Does this person have they demonstrated that they've had a not just a desire but an action that they've taken that has pushed them beyond the limits of the systems that they've operated in? And that's what I would typically look for regardless of the schooling background, the education background is some demonstration of that because that's necessary in business building. So that's my framework for hiring. We call it smarts or horsepower skills, motivation and principles. And we score each one of those and try and come up with hiring. You started to do that with the CEO candidates. I got that email from you and I was very intrigued. So I like that.
我对原始马力技能或经验以及动机都有一套标准。我设立了评估这些标准并与我们的原则相匹配的系统。这算是第四个方面的事情了。原始马力可以通过技能测试基于经验来适应角色和需求。但动机是一个存在很多问号的方面。这个人是否展示出他们不仅有欲望，还采取了行动，超越了他们运作的体系的限制？无论学校背景还是教育背景如何，我通常寻找的是这方面的某种表现，因为这在创造业务中是必要的。所以这就是我招聘的框架。我们称之为头脑潜力或原始马力技能、动机和原则。我们为每个方面打分，并努力进行招聘。你开始在CEO候选人身上采取这个方式。我收到了你的电子邮件，我非常感兴趣。所以我喜欢这个。
All right, everybody. This has been another amazing episode of The All In Podcast for the King of Beef and the dictator and the Rayman himself. I'm your boy, Jacob. We'll see you next time. I love you guys. Bye-bye.
大家好！这是《全力以赴播客》又一个极棒的一集，为肉之王、独裁者和雷曼本人而设。我是你们的男孩 Jacob。下次见！我爱你们。再见！