A lot of good information in this article. My favorite:
Until now, I didn't think that it was a violation of freedom of assembly. Everyone says its free speech, but it is countered by, "well, we own this platform, its private property".
Its like saying, you cannot assembly in the public square, go assemble in your back yard. You own that, right? Doesn't work, because it is not where people go. Freedom of assembly means you can assemble where the public can assemble. When these platforms make it free to enter, it is essentially becoming the public forum; or the public square. Especially during Covid when we couldn't safely assemble physically in public, we did it online.
Another idea, if someone is blocked from using any financial network, how do they pay for food? Do you have the right to cut off someone from their ability to get food, and thus starve them and their family to death on the basis you do not like their views?
So, I don't like your views? Let me legally murder you and your family.
If you tweet something negative about Biden on Twitter it is automatically censored. It was & still is okay to to say the most vile insults against Trump. Just look at the mess Biden has made with his ridiculous sanctions against Russia. He has sanctioned the U.S. in the end. MSM is desperately trying to do damage control. Biden is no match for other world leaders. What a mess.
In related and the main point: when one thinks of the Constitution what do you think of?
It would seem most of us think immediately The Bill Of Rights.
Me too until a few years ago.
The Bill of Rights are Amendments.
Amendments.
What of the core governing document in Articles 1-7?
Does it matter who has the power if the Bill of Rights are upheld?
As it turns out it does matter who has power and it's not the Congress, the President and except as last court of redress the courts either - in short Articles 1-2-3 are it seems not really relevant.
Congress does not make Laws, the Federal Register and Federal Reserve are our laws and money.
So Article I gone.
The President can't hire or fire anyone in the Executive Branch except his political appointees.
Article II gone.
The Courts: in practice are notaries to power. Power, not laws.
Although the Courts in practice have become the only avenue of redress, so there's something remaining to Article II [legislative Redress] coming under the Courts of Article III.
Who has the power? Mr. Sacks may think it's corporations, some of us think they're just trying to survive the permanent government beast as best they can like the rest of us.
We lost the Constitution when we ceded money to the Federal Reserve, laws to the Bureaucracy with the Federal Register, and the Presidency when he lost the ability to fire bureaucrats to Humphrey's Executors and the Administrative Procedures Act. We didn't notice this until they began to encroach on the Bill of Rights, depending on which one is more important to you.
But as we ceded elective powers by stripping the elected of all real power- we have no power.
We lost Constitutional government first and then naturally The Bill of Rights later.
That is the New Deal until now, only now do some notice, more than before.
Not enough.
Mr. Sacks and you Ms. Weiss are a century too late, the Progressives won it all and mean to enjoy it, they mean to enjoy us. They are.
This was a great interview - he's spot on about all this and clearly just as (or more) worried about a social credit score like the rest of us. Him, Elon and Peter Thiel give me hope for this world!
What struck me the most was David’s response about the value of NFT’s. Zero, I don’t own them. There it is, from someone who understands the technology and business models that are created from technology. I’ve sort of been scratching my head for a while on this and landed exactly where David landed. The companies that develop the technology to enable NFT’s and what is spawned next, is where the value is. It’s no different than Air B&B and Uber. This technology didn’t make hotel rooms or cars more valuable, the value is in the technology that created the platform. Now, if could only invest in the start ups that are doing the hard work of developing this now platform. That would be nice.
"Basically, he was insisting on the old etiquette of the workplace, which is you come to work to work." From academia to media to government to (now) the workplace - the woke juggernaut rolls on. Trump was a speed bump. Where is the Javelin missile that will stop it?
Excellent, excellent! I know you couldn't cover everything, but I also would have loved to hear about vaccine digital "passports", "kill" switches in cars (ie. breathalyzers). Where those could go, too. I think we know, but would love to hear his take.
I worried a little about where you were going early in the interview. When you make statements like "But you're actually saying that they're kind of sympathetic to the new, radical ideology themselves" I'm taken aback. "Kind of sympathetic", REALLY??? Fortunately, with Sacks help and TR ending you came back. Thanks for a good interview.
"You have to go back all the way to Teddy Roosevelt. TR was the trust buster. He basically said these monopolies have too much power and we need to bring them to heel. That’s why Teddy Roosevelt is on Mount Rushmore. He stood up for the rights of the common man against the power of these gigantic monopolies."
And in the Age of Cherry Picking meets Composition Division Fallacy as a Quasi Religion (social media) TR's statue has been removed from the setback of a museum that he founded....and...and...when conveying to a friend TR's ferocious tenacity on the River of Doubt, not to mention completing a speech after being shot in the stomach, the friend said: "But he was racist."
This was very good. Thank you. One might write an entire piece about how this control of the public square has allowed a 21st century Utopian Gender Euphoria Cult to take hold of our institutions - promoting magical thinking around the subject of biology and calling it Civil Rights.
I’ve heard this posited a couple of times as a suggestion. I think this suggestion runs contrary to an important freedom - the freedom of association, specifically. A natural part of this freedom is the freedom NOT to associate with someone because of their views. The government rightly prevents organizations from discriminating against individuals based on immutable characteristics; race, national origin, sex, and the like.
Extending this to political viewpoints is entirely different matter. Immutable characteristics have no moral or legal relevance. Political stances often do.
Here are some fun political affiliations we’d all have to overlook in employment decisions and other publicly protected areas of life:
1) Islamic radicalism, including those who promote the expansion of a global caliphate.
2) Nazism and other forms of ethnic national socialism (fascism, syndicalism)
3) Conspiracy theorists, of all stripes: Jews control the world, subterranean reptilian aliens control the world, pizza loving pedophiles control the world, 9/11 was an inside job, Paul McCartney died in ‘67 and was replaced by MI5 with a Scottish look-alike named Billy Shears
4) People who think Taylor Swift writes good music.
5) Communists, even those who advocate for the violent co-opting of all private property.
6) The View contributors
I’m happy we’re allowed to disassociate and marginalize people based on their views.
I get your point but you missed a protected category: religion. That is not an immutable characteristic of birth and there are some pretty out-there whacko religions and religious beliefs. Try to fire someone in your category 1 because of their Islamic beliefs (you won't denounce female genital mutilation?!) and see how that works. Also, this "the freedom not to associate" is not a civil liberty. You have no civil right to not associate with someone you don't like.
The answer, of course, is to revert to what we all used to do: work is for work, school is for school and what you do on your own private time is up to you. That was before the leftist cancer of "everyone must be an activist all the time for all our causes, and all other causes are dangerous and hate-filled and must be eradicated."
Not to pile on, but outside of certain types of public accommodations (hotels, housing, access to parks and public property, theaters, and employment opportunities) most private organizations are free to discriminate against whomever the may wish for whatever reason they choose.
Last I checked, the “Red Hat Society” does not allow men to join. This is not illegal in the US.
I believe that the Knights of Columbus does not allow women to join.
“You have no civil right not to associate with someone you don’t like.”
Yes, of course, you do. If this were not true, the landscaper who just told me he is too busy to mow my yard while I’m out of town would be breaking the law. He’s free to decline business that he can’t handle. If I call him names and give him a lousy yelp review, he could refuse my business too.
But religious discrimination is tolerated in many instances, unlike the other forms of protected classes. Need a Baptist church consider a Jewish Rabbi in their hiring decisions? Should ideological discrimination be illegal, the Republican Party would be required, by law, to allow Democrats to participate in the party, as an example.
The freedom to do something, like associate, always involves the freedom not to do so. The government can’t make me attend a PTA meeting, for instance. They can’t make me show up to the polls and vote.
The freedom of speech, for instance, means not only that you can speak as you will, but also that the government cannot compel you to speak when you otherwise wouldn’t. The same is true of association. I don’t have to associate with anyone that I don’t want to, so long as it cannot be shown I have discriminated against someone based on their protected status.
Bari, do you think they really mean this? Could a voice with a different viewpoint survive at NYT now? https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-announces-twitter-reset-tweets-or-subtweets-attacking-colleagues-not-allowed
David says that certain organizations are under "new management".
What this means is that they have been taken over by the liberal left.
Just like our schools, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, etc.
Fantastic interview, such brilliant conversation, great audio, love it!
A lot of good information in this article. My favorite:
Until now, I didn't think that it was a violation of freedom of assembly. Everyone says its free speech, but it is countered by, "well, we own this platform, its private property".
Its like saying, you cannot assembly in the public square, go assemble in your back yard. You own that, right? Doesn't work, because it is not where people go. Freedom of assembly means you can assemble where the public can assemble. When these platforms make it free to enter, it is essentially becoming the public forum; or the public square. Especially during Covid when we couldn't safely assemble physically in public, we did it online.
Another idea, if someone is blocked from using any financial network, how do they pay for food? Do you have the right to cut off someone from their ability to get food, and thus starve them and their family to death on the basis you do not like their views?
So, I don't like your views? Let me legally murder you and your family.
A plot from a future dystopian novel...
If you tweet something negative about Biden on Twitter it is automatically censored. It was & still is okay to to say the most vile insults against Trump. Just look at the mess Biden has made with his ridiculous sanctions against Russia. He has sanctioned the U.S. in the end. MSM is desperately trying to do damage control. Biden is no match for other world leaders. What a mess.
Politics is Power.
Who has the Power?
They decide who does what to whom.
In related and the main point: when one thinks of the Constitution what do you think of?
It would seem most of us think immediately The Bill Of Rights.
Me too until a few years ago.
The Bill of Rights are Amendments.
Amendments.
What of the core governing document in Articles 1-7?
Does it matter who has the power if the Bill of Rights are upheld?
As it turns out it does matter who has power and it's not the Congress, the President and except as last court of redress the courts either - in short Articles 1-2-3 are it seems not really relevant.
Congress does not make Laws, the Federal Register and Federal Reserve are our laws and money.
So Article I gone.
The President can't hire or fire anyone in the Executive Branch except his political appointees.
Article II gone.
The Courts: in practice are notaries to power. Power, not laws.
Although the Courts in practice have become the only avenue of redress, so there's something remaining to Article II [legislative Redress] coming under the Courts of Article III.
Who has the power? Mr. Sacks may think it's corporations, some of us think they're just trying to survive the permanent government beast as best they can like the rest of us.
We lost the Constitution when we ceded money to the Federal Reserve, laws to the Bureaucracy with the Federal Register, and the Presidency when he lost the ability to fire bureaucrats to Humphrey's Executors and the Administrative Procedures Act. We didn't notice this until they began to encroach on the Bill of Rights, depending on which one is more important to you.
But as we ceded elective powers by stripping the elected of all real power- we have no power.
We lost Constitutional government first and then naturally The Bill of Rights later.
That is the New Deal until now, only now do some notice, more than before.
Not enough.
Mr. Sacks and you Ms. Weiss are a century too late, the Progressives won it all and mean to enjoy it, they mean to enjoy us. They are.
Good luck.
This was a great interview - he's spot on about all this and clearly just as (or more) worried about a social credit score like the rest of us. Him, Elon and Peter Thiel give me hope for this world!
Great interview, thanks to Bari & David.
What struck me the most was David’s response about the value of NFT’s. Zero, I don’t own them. There it is, from someone who understands the technology and business models that are created from technology. I’ve sort of been scratching my head for a while on this and landed exactly where David landed. The companies that develop the technology to enable NFT’s and what is spawned next, is where the value is. It’s no different than Air B&B and Uber. This technology didn’t make hotel rooms or cars more valuable, the value is in the technology that created the platform. Now, if could only invest in the start ups that are doing the hard work of developing this now platform. That would be nice.
Well said, the danger of what JT did is unspeakable. Thank you for giving voice.
"Basically, he was insisting on the old etiquette of the workplace, which is you come to work to work." From academia to media to government to (now) the workplace - the woke juggernaut rolls on. Trump was a speed bump. Where is the Javelin missile that will stop it?
Excellent, excellent! I know you couldn't cover everything, but I also would have loved to hear about vaccine digital "passports", "kill" switches in cars (ie. breathalyzers). Where those could go, too. I think we know, but would love to hear his take.
I worried a little about where you were going early in the interview. When you make statements like "But you're actually saying that they're kind of sympathetic to the new, radical ideology themselves" I'm taken aback. "Kind of sympathetic", REALLY??? Fortunately, with Sacks help and TR ending you came back. Thanks for a good interview.
"You have to go back all the way to Teddy Roosevelt. TR was the trust buster. He basically said these monopolies have too much power and we need to bring them to heel. That’s why Teddy Roosevelt is on Mount Rushmore. He stood up for the rights of the common man against the power of these gigantic monopolies."
And in the Age of Cherry Picking meets Composition Division Fallacy as a Quasi Religion (social media) TR's statue has been removed from the setback of a museum that he founded....and...and...when conveying to a friend TR's ferocious tenacity on the River of Doubt, not to mention completing a speech after being shot in the stomach, the friend said: "But he was racist."
Just brilliant - thank you! This is the interview I wish all my f&f would listen to (I will share in the hope that they do).
This was very good. Thank you. One might write an entire piece about how this control of the public square has allowed a 21st century Utopian Gender Euphoria Cult to take hold of our institutions - promoting magical thinking around the subject of biology and calling it Civil Rights.
Making political views a protected category against discrimination would help a lot.
I’ve heard this posited a couple of times as a suggestion. I think this suggestion runs contrary to an important freedom - the freedom of association, specifically. A natural part of this freedom is the freedom NOT to associate with someone because of their views. The government rightly prevents organizations from discriminating against individuals based on immutable characteristics; race, national origin, sex, and the like.
Extending this to political viewpoints is entirely different matter. Immutable characteristics have no moral or legal relevance. Political stances often do.
Here are some fun political affiliations we’d all have to overlook in employment decisions and other publicly protected areas of life:
1) Islamic radicalism, including those who promote the expansion of a global caliphate.
2) Nazism and other forms of ethnic national socialism (fascism, syndicalism)
3) Conspiracy theorists, of all stripes: Jews control the world, subterranean reptilian aliens control the world, pizza loving pedophiles control the world, 9/11 was an inside job, Paul McCartney died in ‘67 and was replaced by MI5 with a Scottish look-alike named Billy Shears
4) People who think Taylor Swift writes good music.
5) Communists, even those who advocate for the violent co-opting of all private property.
6) The View contributors
I’m happy we’re allowed to disassociate and marginalize people based on their views.
I get your point but you missed a protected category: religion. That is not an immutable characteristic of birth and there are some pretty out-there whacko religions and religious beliefs. Try to fire someone in your category 1 because of their Islamic beliefs (you won't denounce female genital mutilation?!) and see how that works. Also, this "the freedom not to associate" is not a civil liberty. You have no civil right to not associate with someone you don't like.
The answer, of course, is to revert to what we all used to do: work is for work, school is for school and what you do on your own private time is up to you. That was before the leftist cancer of "everyone must be an activist all the time for all our causes, and all other causes are dangerous and hate-filled and must be eradicated."
The Coinbase example above was great.
Not to pile on, but outside of certain types of public accommodations (hotels, housing, access to parks and public property, theaters, and employment opportunities) most private organizations are free to discriminate against whomever the may wish for whatever reason they choose.
Last I checked, the “Red Hat Society” does not allow men to join. This is not illegal in the US.
I believe that the Knights of Columbus does not allow women to join.
“You have no civil right not to associate with someone you don’t like.”
Yes, of course, you do. If this were not true, the landscaper who just told me he is too busy to mow my yard while I’m out of town would be breaking the law. He’s free to decline business that he can’t handle. If I call him names and give him a lousy yelp review, he could refuse my business too.
But religious discrimination is tolerated in many instances, unlike the other forms of protected classes. Need a Baptist church consider a Jewish Rabbi in their hiring decisions? Should ideological discrimination be illegal, the Republican Party would be required, by law, to allow Democrats to participate in the party, as an example.
The freedom to do something, like associate, always involves the freedom not to do so. The government can’t make me attend a PTA meeting, for instance. They can’t make me show up to the polls and vote.
The freedom of speech, for instance, means not only that you can speak as you will, but also that the government cannot compel you to speak when you otherwise wouldn’t. The same is true of association. I don’t have to associate with anyone that I don’t want to, so long as it cannot be shown I have discriminated against someone based on their protected status.