reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @farzyness
@farzyness - Farzad
I'm having an impossible time getting this chart out of my head. Doesn't this very strongly imply that the entire bureaucratic apparatus around our nation's capital is geared to serve one party? How else would one describe this? https://t.co/7PoYAueG3e
@farzyness - Farzad
Full interview: https://t.co/inoJEKkDHi
@farzyness - Farzad
Elon Musk Stuns Joe Rogan. Thank you @DavidCarbutt_ for the edit. @elonmusk @joerogan
Video Transcript AI Summary
Thank you for purchasing Twitter. Your acquisition has significantly impacted history, preventing further censorship and control over narratives. The deplatforming of Trump was particularly alarming, as he was urging calm during unrest. The conversation highlights the absurdity of labeling his peaceful messages as incitement. There are concerns about government interference in social media, with organizations pushing for advertiser boycotts and using the DOJ to target companies like SpaceX. The discussion emphasizes the importance of free speech and the dangers of misinformation, particularly from legacy media. The Twitter files revealed extensive government influence on the platform, with Twitter welcoming this interference and even getting paid for it. This raises serious constitutional concerns about the government's access to social media.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you so much for buying Twitter.
Speaker 1: You're welcome.
Speaker 0: So much.
Speaker 1: You're welcome.
Speaker 0: I'm not exaggerating when I think you changed the course of history. I really do. I really think you you made a fork in the road. We were headed down a path of censorship and of control of narratives that is unprecedented. Forget about what they were able to do back when they had newspapers and the media under control.
That what they were doing with social media by suppressing information and when you had a combined government effort, like, what what they were doing with the laptop story. Yep. We have 51 former intelligence agents saying that this is Russian disinformation. Yeah. Take it off offline.
Yeah. And Twitter complied.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: If you didn't buy that, we wouldn't have known that. We had no idea.
Speaker 1: Exactly. The reason I bought it was because I'm pretty attuned since I I was like the most interacted with a user on Twitter before the acquisition. So before the acquisitions that I had more interactions than then there's some accounts like Obama and whatever had higher follower accounts, but I had the most number of interactions of of any account in the system. So I was very attuned to if if they saw change if they change the system, I can tell immediately. And I'm like I'm like, something weird is going on here.
You know? The there's I I just got increasingly uneasy. And obviously, when when they deplatformed the setting president, you know, not deplatform Trump, that was just insane. You know? And and the things he was posting, like, he was posting things that that he was posting good things.
He was saying, like, hey, do do not riot. Don't do any destruction of property. You know, please stay calm. That's the kind of stuff he was posting. Yeah.
And you're like, what's wrong with that? That? That's and and then then some people said, oh, that's like some sort of dog whistle. He means the opposite. I'm like, okay.
So we'll give you Trump's account. Now you you post what you think you should post because you can post nothing. You can ask people to calm down. Like, what? It it was insane.
Like, it didn't make any sense.
Speaker 0: Well, it's completely illogical when you say it's dog whistling to tell his followers to not be violent.
Speaker 1: That's crazy. And crazy. That's crazy. Crazy.
Speaker 0: Don't you think they will listen to him? Yeah. Isn't that the whole point? They listened to him and created violence in the first place? That's what you think.
Speaker 1: That's what you're Exactly.
Speaker 0: You're accusing him of. Right. And then there's the fact that we know that there was agents in the crowd that were agent provocateurs that were encouraging people to do illegal Yes. We know that for a fact. This is not that that was always the big Alex Jones type tinfoil hat conspiracy theory because Alex proposed that back at the World Trade Organization protests.
We I believe we're in Seattle in the nineties. And they sent in agent provocateur, started smashing things, lighting things on fire. Now all of a sudden, a peaceful protest is no longer peaceful. Right. They move in the cops.
They shut everything down. They had it set up where it was a no protest zone where you couldn't even have a pin that had the WTO with a red line through it. They wouldn't let you go in through to go to work. So you couldn't protest. You couldn't exercise your first amendment rights.
You couldn't even have a peaceful protest, a fucking sticker on your car. You couldn't have that. It's crazy.
Speaker 1: It is crazy. I think we're we we're very much in a fork in the road in Destiny. And, I mean, the reason I, you know, did the quarter acquisition was like, man, if if I don't do this, I think we're screwed is the issue.
Speaker 0: Well, if you didn't do it, no one else was gonna do it because it wasn't a financial winner. It was kind of a crazy move.
Speaker 1: It's a crazy move. I mean, the thing was way overpriced and, you know, like, long long term, I think we can we can ultimately make it a win for investors, but, boy, this is a hard way to make a living.
Speaker 0: Well, there's also a concerted effort to suppress it. There's a concerted effort to Yeah. With the advertisers.
Speaker 1: Well, we we we had a I still have a a massive advertiser boycott that was organized by a bunch of left wing NGOs. You know, and and you you always want and I should've I should've brought my I I have a hat make all well fiction again.
Speaker 0: I've seen that hat.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I should've bought I was gonna wear my I should've bought my make all well fiction hat again. But but yeah. I mean, it's just totally totally nuts.
Speaker 0: If you didn't do it, no one would have. And here's the hilarious narrative that I keep hearing from idiots. Elon's a bad businessman. Twitter is worth, you know, 400% less than when he bought it. No.
It wasn't worth that in the first place.
Speaker 1: It wasn't worth that in the first place.
Speaker 0: It wasn't worth $44,000,000,000. Wrong. And, also, you're not taking into account the advertiser boycott.
Speaker 1: Exactly. That's total Yeah. Ex exactly. So there there are these organizations what now you can tell is that they're, like, when they have an Orwellian name. So, like, the, like, the Center for Countering Digital Hate Right.
Is is a total scam organization, you know, because they're like the Ministry of Truth type
Speaker 0: of thing
Speaker 1: in in in Orwell. You know, they're they're they're, like, they're they're a censorship organization, and they pushed the advertisers to boycott. So we still have some of the boycott is is is starting to lift, and I think if Trump wins, we'll we'll see, you know, probably a lot most most of the boycott lift. But if if Kamala wins, we'll see that boycott get stronger. And and they'll they'll freaking shut down.
There's no way that that the sort of Kamala public regime would allow x to exist.
Speaker 0: You really think that they'll be able to shut it down, though? Is there a pathway to that?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: What would they do?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, they can just they can sic the DOJ on, you know, and say you know, they've had this whole thing about hate speech, misinformation, whatever, except that they're they're the ones pushing the misinformation. But that doesn't stop them from filing massive, you know, lawsuits and using the DOJ. I mean, the DOJ has, you know, been attacking SpaceX, for example, for not hiring asylum seekers even though it is legal for SpaceX to hire anyone who's not a permanent resident of the US. So we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. This is an exam just an example of what DOJ can do.
Speaker 0: So it's illegal to hire someone who's not an American citizen?
Speaker 1: Well, SpaceX, is considered an an advanced weapons technology. So it's it's covered by international traffic and arms regulations because we we make rocket technology that can be used against the United States. So if North North Korea or Iran got SpaceX rocket technology, they could use that to launch nukes at America. Right. That would be bad.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That'd be really bad.
Speaker 1: That'd be really bad. So since we are in, like, the most extreme category of weapons technology at SpaceX, under US ITAR law, it is illegal for us to hire anyone who's not a permanent resident, because the presumption is that if they're not a permanent resident, they're gonna return to their, home country and take the rocket technology with them. So that's and so it's illegal for us to hire anyone who's not a pro either has not a pro they can they can be have a green card or be a citizen. They just have to be a permanent resident of the United States. Then there's another law that says, if you if you discriminate against asylum seekers, that's also you're also breaking the law.
So that the DOJ was not the DOJ the DOJ can only do a small number of big lawsuits every year. They launched a giant lawsuit against SpaceX saying that SpaceX discriminated against asylum seekers. And we're like, but we're like, but it's illegal for us to hire anyone who's not a permanent resident. So we're in this this is what I mean. It's Orwell the Orwell situation is getting insane.
You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't. So you're damned.
Speaker 0: Can you imagine history looking back Locked
Speaker 1: up, man.
Speaker 0: At when you watch the robot arms catch the rocket and you realize this is, like, one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of aerospace. Like, it is one of the most wildest accomplishments. Yeah. When you watch that thing come and you see all those people cheering and it catches it perfectly, like, holy imagine how history is gonna look back at the DOJ going after that company. Yeah.
How insane it is.
Speaker 1: Big lawsuit with an army of lawyers. This was not, like, some minor thing. But it doesn't even make any sense. Watch this.
Speaker 0: Like, how can it even get brought to court
Speaker 1: if it's illegal? That's exactly. So that that's what I mean. Like, basically if the government wants to go after you, they'll just find a reason. You know, it's like that famous quote from Beria.
The head of Stalin's secret police and he's like, you've tortured a truly evil human being. Like this guy Beria, he his his one of his famous quotes was show me the man and I'll show you the crime. They, like, they decide that you're the target, and then they figure out the crime afterwards. That's the issue. They decided SpaceX was the target, they just figured out the crime afterwards.
Speaker 0: Which is so crazy because that's exactly what they're saying Trump is going to do if he gets into office.
Speaker 1: They're doing all the things that they accuse Trump of doing.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Openly. Openly.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, the the the sheer number of hoaxes that the Democratic Party is pushing over and over again, they and and look, I understand, like, politicians are gonna, you know, exaggerate, they're gonna misspeak, and they'll tell occasional, you know, untruths, whatever. That's that's how it is in politics. But when you have deliberate, concerted, repeated pushing of hoaxes, you're like, wait a second. Come on, man.
This is too this is too far.
Speaker 0: And you're supposed to be the good guys.
Speaker 1: You're supposed and you claim to be the good guys? I'm like, exactly.
Speaker 0: You're supposed to be the progressives.
Speaker 1: Yes. The Dems are like, oh, we're the good guys. We're the honest people. No. No.
Hang on. You can't claim to be the good guys. You can't claim to be the honest people if you're deliberately post pushing hoaxes that have been debunked thoroughly. Yeah. Well, Roger Even Snopes, which is a liberal thing, says us bogus.
Yeah. Like the fine people's hoax. Uh-huh.
Speaker 0: Obama just said that on stage.
Speaker 1: Just said that.
Speaker 0: I was like, what the flying he doesn't give a he doesn't give a they're just they're just they're just That's a goddamn lie. Flat out lie.
Speaker 1: Flat out lie. How about
Speaker 0: the other one where Kamala's campaign used what Trump was saying about protecting women and from illegal immigrants.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: You remember that?
Speaker 1: That Yeah.
Speaker 0: What he was saying is that if the women like it or not, I'm gonna do it. Yeah. When he was saying that, they were trying to say that he was taking away women's right to choose, whether women like it or not. That's not what he was saying.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. He
Speaker 0: was literally talking about protecting them from dangerous people that are sneaking in through the border.
Speaker 1: Yes. Exactly. But they'll take, like like, not even a full sentence, like, a half a sentence from Yes. And then and then I'll push it on on every ad, every, you know, every speaking event, every meeting.
Speaker 0: Repeated on the news. Yes. This is what's crazy. They'll talk about it on these new shows. Quote new shows.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. I mean, I mean, a recent one that that came up, a lot of people reached out to me was, like, they're they're, like, oh, Trump says he wants to execute Liz Cheney. I'm, like, that is utter It's not what he said
Speaker 0: at all.
Speaker 1: It's not what he said at all. Here, what he's saying is that, look, if if Liz Cheney actually had to fight at the front lines, should think twice about going to war. Exactly. It's easy to go it's easy to go to war. It's easy to be a warmonger if you don't have to, you know, risk dying at the front lines.
If other basically, it's fucked up if if people are having fancy dinners in Washington DC while people are being slaughtered in trenches. You know, it's like you're not feeling the pain.
Speaker 0: Exactly.
Speaker 1: You're not taking the risk. It's someone else dying. Exactly. That's that's cruel and lacking in empathy. And and all Trump was saying was that Liz Cheney will be much less of a warmonger because she's a huge warmonger, just like her dad, if she actually had had to go to the front lines and fight herself.
Speaker 0: And meanwhile, they're saying that he should he's saying she should be shot.
Speaker 1: Yes. Which is a total lie.
Speaker 0: And But
Speaker 1: I had, like, tons of people call me this weekend saying, oh, Trump says he's gonna put Liz Cheney in a firing squad. Like, that is an outrageous lie. And legacy media ran with that lie big time.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's crazy. It's it's just wild to see. And if it wasn't for Twitter, I don't think we would know about all this stuff. I I think it would be very difficult for you.
I think YouTube throttled. They did something weird. They won't say what they did, but they did something weird with the Trump interview that I did Yeah. Where you couldn't find it.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make sense.
Speaker 0: It made no sense.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's like the it was like the biggest interview on Earth Yeah. And you can't find it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Not only that, it wasn't trending. Bull. It wasn't trending. It wasn't trending.
Speaker 1: It wasn't trending. It wasn't trending. It wasn't trending. It wasn't trending.
Speaker 0: It wasn't trending.
Speaker 1: Like, there's just no excuse for that, man.
Speaker 0: No excuse.
Speaker 1: There's no excuse.
Speaker 0: It was getting a 1,000,000 views. 1 point what was it? 1.4 an hour at one point in time? 1.5. 1.5 an hour.
Yeah. And it wasn't trending.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Like And it's like it's like it's like your channel is a known channel. It's not it's not like it was started yesterday. It's a Yeah. It's like this is a high trust yours is a high trust channel.
It's like you're not trying to sell scam crypto coins. So so
Speaker 0: Well, thank God we put it on x as well. Yeah. Yeah. Because I think just with your account and my account alone, that's 70,000,000 views.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Well, it's like you can't hide things anymore because of you. And if it wasn't for you, I think they would have had total control of social media by now.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: They would have they banned so many accounts during the pandemic, so many dissenting scientists and doctors and physicians. They banned so many conspiracy theorists, so many people that colored outside the lines. They would have done that everywhere, and it it probably would have I think even at what's going on at Facebook, they're they're being more lenient. You know, you hear Zuckerberg talking about taking a more libertarian stance. That's entirely reaction to the way Twitter has kinda moved the watermark.
Speaker 1: Exactly. As soon as as soon as any company steps out of line and is willing to actually have the truth debated on their platform, it forces the other platforms to allow things to be more truthful to to not censor because their censorship becomes glaringly obvious. Yes. Yes. And, you know, the the best thing I found for as a rebuttal, like, if somebody if there's a hoax, is just go to the source material.
You know? If if you think if somebody saying thinks, you know, you know, Trump said that that we should put Liz Cheney in a firing squad. I'm, like, let let let me send you a link to x so you can watch his video. That's the best way. Yes.
It's it's don't take my opinion for it. Don't take anyone's opinion for it. Go to the source material.
Speaker 0: And community notes.
Speaker 1: Yes. And community notes is awesome. Is the best. It's awesome.
Speaker 0: It's incredible. Yeah. Because everybody gets checked.
Speaker 1: Yes. Including me. Yeah. And with community notes, the all the software is open source and all the data is open source. So you can recreate any given note independently.
That's amazing. Yeah. That's how it's be
Speaker 0: that's how
Speaker 1: it should be. Total, absolute transparency in every way. You know, sometimes I get I get asked, oh, y'all can you remove a note? You know, mostly by the left, but sometimes by the right. I'm like I'm like, I don't even remove remove notes on my own count.
Nothing. And and and by the way, everything is totally open. So if I did that, it would stick out like a sore thumb Yeah. Immediately. Like, it's not gonna be subtle.
Speaker 0: That is the best counter to misinformation.
Speaker 1: Yes. Absolutely.
Speaker 0: Let everybody look at it and say, okay. Here's what the actual fact says.
Speaker 1: Yes. Exactly. The the counter to misinformation is better information.
Speaker 0: Not just that, but having it checked in real time by the community. So you have millions of people that can go over and debate whether or not this is true or that's true.
Speaker 1: Yes. And and just and I like I said, like, the the best way to understand the truth of things is don't take anyone's opinion for it. Look at the source material. So look at what someone actually said, look at what someone actually did, look at the real videos of the situation, and and then you can actually you'll know what's real. Especially on the Democrat side, they've been repeatedly saying that that the that the First Amendment is an obstacle.
And they're claiming, oh, the First Amendment is is is enabling dis disinformation, misinformation. And I'm like, yo, there's a reason for the First Amendment. Freedom of speech the reason they found out the country put, you know, the freedom of speech there is because they came from countries where if if you spoke your mind, you would get shot or imprisoned. That's why the First Amendment exists. And the Second Amendment is there to stop the tyranny of government.
The Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, is there to protect freedom of speech. You know? You know? And I I've had these debates, especially with people in LA, because they they're they're like, one take or one's guns away. And I'm like, yo, can you guarantee me that the government that we will never have a tyrannical government in the United States?
Can you can you make that guarantee? But, like, well, nobody can make that guarantee. I'm like, then we need to keep our guns because that's the that's what's gonna stop it.
Speaker 0: That sounds crazy for people to hear because they think about gun violence and gun problems and gun this and gun that, but that's the reality of the world that we live in is that tyranny is possible and it exists other places and it's slowly existing. It's slowly rearing its head in the UK. You're you're saying I I think the the number of people that have been arrested for just social media, posts is bananas. It's in the 1,000.
Speaker 1: Yes. Several thousand people have been have been given prison sentences in the UK for social media posts that where there was no explicit link to actual violence. But they just said it encouraged violence. Like, well, did anyone actually do anything as a result of that media post? Well, no.
But they they just and and then they have a prison overcrowding situation in the UK, so that they'll quite literally releasing convicted pedophiles and putting people in jail for Facebook posts. That's an actual thing happening in Britain. Like, it's you're, like, one
Speaker 0: of the It's so wild that people can't say.
Speaker 1: You know, is going on.
Speaker 0: And what's insane to me Make
Speaker 1: oil fiction again. Yeah. You know?
Speaker 0: But it's all being encouraged by the left. Ketanji Brown Jackson, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton. John Kerry
Speaker 1: was one of the people who said that the on camera, like, a few weeks ago, saying that the First Amendment is a prob is an obstacle to fighting misinformation.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's crazy. That's such a crazy thing to say when you have a solution in community notes. Yeah. You have a solution and something that that could clear everything up, any confusion within a day or 2.
Speaker 1: And and even without a community note, you can reply to a post and with with evidence that that that shows that the post is wrong. You don't even need community notes. I mean, community notes is helpful because it sticks to the original note. Yes. But in the replies, you can say, here's why you're wrong, here are the reasons, and here's the evidence.
Speaker 0: But the argument is that people are too unsophisticated, that they're not going to research these things. They're gonna be a victim of misinformation. So they're gonna read something that's incorrect. They're gonna run with it. People are gonna die.
People are gonna we're gonna ruin the world because people believed in misinformation. It's a stupid argument.
Speaker 1: It's a stupid argument.
Speaker 0: Because it's an argument that they're too dumb to know what's right or wrong. Yes. If you if you know, because you're saying it's misinformation. Why do you think that you're smarter than everybody who reads that?
Speaker 1: Exactly. And and obviously anyone on on the X system knows that the things were posted and then there are replies and there are the rebuttals and it's immediately corrected. But where are the corrections for the legacy media? Right. You know, when when if, you know, some broadcast media pop they they they they sit say false things all the time, but it's a one way street.
There's no rebuttal. There's no counter. Right. You know?
Speaker 0: This who's apologized for being incorrect about what did Rachel Maddow ever apologize for telling everybody that if you get the COVID vaccine, you're never gonna get COVID? It won't the virus stops
Speaker 1: with you? Never.
Speaker 0: Never. No one ever it's just it was not true at the time. There was no evidence to support it at the time. It's pure propaganda, and she said it, the Russiagate hoax. The for 3 years, they said that he was Putin's toy
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: And that Putin had him compromised. The Steele dossier.
Speaker 1: The Steele dossier was completely fabricated by, a lawyer at Perkins Coie who was paid by the Clinton campaign. Literally.
Speaker 0: Crazy.
Speaker 1: And still people think the Russian hoax is real.
Speaker 0: And there's no repercussions.
Speaker 1: There's no
Speaker 0: one had to apologize. Hillary Clinton never came out and apologized for that and people still listen to her. The whole thing is crazy. And it's all coming from the left which growing up as a a person who's in the left my whole life, it doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: Same. I was on the left until 3 years ago.
Speaker 0: It's not the left anymore.
Speaker 1: It's not the left anymore. It it just I think we obviously want I believe we want freedom. We want we wanna maximize post personal liberty. I think we want we wanna be kind to people, you know, we wanna have empathy, and but it's very important to have personal freedom and a merit based society. And the left is is wants to oppress your freedoms, especially freedom of speech, and they wanna they wanna have a non merit based society, you know, with race based and sex based preferences.
And I said, well, wait a second, no, we just want people to succeed based on their skills and their hard work.
Speaker 0: And if they don't want people to express themselves about particular issues then they're not doing the will of the people. If they're trying to suppress people's ability to communicate, they're only doing that because they wanna do things that people don't want them to do. Yes. And they wanna silence opposition. That's all it is.
And the fact that people can't see that and they wanna call Trump a fascist, Well, the whole thing is stages through the looking glass. It's just I mean,
Speaker 1: it's one hoax after another that that they're portraying as Trump. And if they try to call the the rally at Madison Square Gardens like a Nazi rally, I'm like, yo, there was, like, literally an Israeli flag in the audience. I think a quarter of the speakers were Jewish. There was, like, there were people of every race, color, creed, religion at that at that rally. Tell me, what about that is Nazi?
And yet it was portrayed as a Nazi rally in the sense
Speaker 0: Well, MSNBC, they they literally showed video of the Nazi rally from the 19 thirties and then compared it to the Trump rally. Now ignoring the fact that Jimmy Carter spoke there.
Speaker 1: There there have been dozens of political rallies at Madison Square Gardens. Dozens, on the on the Democrat side. People people on x were like, and here's exactly here's Jimmy Carter and here's Bill Clinton and here's wait a second. Actually, it looks like every presidential candidate has done a on the Democrat side has done a rally at Madison Square Garden. Are they Nazis too?
Speaker 0: But what they're doing is they're preying on low information voters who aren't engaged actively on social media, who don't have the time to look through everything and
Speaker 1: Exactly. Yeah. But people are living if if people are just on looking at legacy mainstream media, then they have a totally different world view than if they're on x and and seeing the the actual flow of argument Yes. And the actual evidence.
Speaker 0: Well, what was the pushback? What happened when you guys released the Twitter files? Because I think the Twitter files is probably one of the most important things in this age of information for understanding the influence that government has on social media and and on discourse. Because when when we found out that that was the case, that the government was actually asking Twitter to remove posts that were factual Yeah.
Speaker 1: All the time.
Speaker 0: They did the same thing to Facebook. They had them throttle pieces of one of Tucker Carlson's show. They they suppressed the views by 50% Yeah. Of factual information.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. There was there was massive government interference in Twitter, but but Twitter welcomed it. It that's important to all Twitter welcomed it. I mean, all Twitter was controlled by by far left activists.
They welcomed the government interference. The government they get paid by the government for it.
Speaker 0: That's crazy. They got paid for their time. Correct?
Speaker 1: Yeah. They got paid 1,000,000 of dollars for for suppressing information.
Speaker 0: So it's like bill
Speaker 1: and time much of it was, like, federal legal. The FBI had this, like, this this this sort of magic portal into the Twitter system and and the but all of the communication that that sort of in this portal was auto deleted after 2 weeks, which breaks federal FOIA laws. So we don't even know what was said because it was all deleted after 2 weeks.
Speaker 0: That's insane. Yeah. That's so crazy. It's so crazy that people thought that was okay.
Speaker 1: It's not super not okay.
Speaker 0: No. It's super not okay. It's unconstitutional and no one would want that. No one would want the government to have that kind of access. Exactly.
@farzyness - Farzad
Here's a supercut of @elonmusk's appearance in Italy this past Friday. This version cuts out all the dead space & pauses, and reduces total time by about 35%. Thank you @DavidCarbutt_ for the work! https://t.co/eXsaLdkRH1
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speaker emphasizes the importance of having children to ensure the continuation of human civilization. They express concern about declining birth rates and advise government leaders to incentivize and support childbearing. The speaker also discusses the impact of immigration, stating that it cannot solve population decline and emphasizing the value of preserving cultural identity. They touch on the environmental movement, expressing support for a sustainable future but cautioning against an extreme view that sees humanity as a negative force. The speaker criticizes the "woke mind virus" for promoting divisive identity politics and condemning people instead of celebrating them. They stress the importance of free speech and discuss the potential risks and benefits of artificial intelligence. The speaker concludes by highlighting the need for humanity to become a multiplanetary species to ensure its survival.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: First question is about demography. Yeah. I spoke with you in the past about that, and I think it's very important for you. And you pointed on that to a lot of your discussion and your purpose. Is it Yeah.
Speaker 1: I really wanna emphasize that it's important to have children and to create the new generation. And as simple as it sounds, if people do not have children, there is no new generation. So I'm very much in favor of humanity expanding and creating a bright and exciting future for the world. And but fundamental to the furtherance of human civilization is having humans, as simple and basic as that sounds. And every every year, I look at the the birth rates, and I'm like, it's it's a a bit depressing because birth rates Seem to decline every year.
And I I think that pass my biggest advice to leaders, to government leaders, and to to the people in general Would be to make sure to have children to create the new generation. And, yeah, I think any incentives that Can be done to incent the new generation to make it easier for women to have children and to Support the children, I think, would be very wise. This is so fundamental, and I really can't emphasize that enough. If you don't have a new generation, there is no new generation. Or with current birth rates, I think it may be the generations are birth rate is maybe half of the replacement rate.
What that means is in 3 generations, the population will be 1 roughly 1 tenth of its current size. In 3 generations, maybe 4 generations, The your the population will be 1 tenth of its current size. So I I I always, wanna emphasize this point because it is so basic and fundamental That if if there's not at least a birth rate which is keeping population constant, then, the the a people will will disappear, mister Maas. Disappear. Disappear.
Speaker 0: We have a lot of immigration. Somebody says that immigration is important for that reason. What's your point on that? Immigrations is coming in Europe, and it's coming America from the South of America, and then Europe from the South of Mediterranean Sea. What do you think about that?
Speaker 1: Well, I think One can't depend on other countries for immigration. And in fact, if you look at, say, the population worldwide, And this is almost everywhere in the world, and it seems to be a function of how once a country industrializes, once a country urbanizes, The population immediately starts to decline. So one could say, for example, like like China could not possibly solve its Population with immigration. Because if China is currently tracking to be maybe lose 40% of its population every generation, that would be 700,000,000, 800,000,000 people or 700 roughly 76, 700,000,000 people. It's a lot, basically.
You'd have to have the entire United States immigrate there twice Every generation just simply maintain numbers just for China. So immigration, the there simply aren't enough numbers in patience. And I think there is value to a culture. We don't want cultures. We don't want Japan to disappear.
We don't want Italy as a culture it disappear? We don't want France as a culture to disappear. I think we have to have the maintain this sort of reasonable cultural identity of the various countries, or they simply will not be those countries. Italy Italy is the people of Italy. The the buildings are there.
But really, what is Italy? Italy is the people of Italy. So, I mean, I I just think it's And I I speak as someone who is very much Very much an environmentalist. I believe in having building a sustainable future for the world. I think there are very few people As an individual who have done more than I have for to help the environment with electric cars and solar and batteries To create a sustainable energy future because we absolutely need a sustainable energy future.
But there is an aspect of the environmental movement that I think has gone too far. Really? Said from you. Yes. So said for me, I think I am objectively one of the world's leading environmentalists in terms of doing things.
Speaker 0: I'm not sure. Sure.
Speaker 1: Like, I'm an environmentalist It does things. I of talk of action, not talk. I act. So so I feel I can say as as an environmentalist That the environmentalist movement has gone too far. And in that if you in the national extension of the environmentalist movement, if you go too far, you start to look at humanity as a bad thing.
You start to look at humanity as though we are a plague on the surface of the Earth, as though humanity is a bad thing. And in fact, there are some People who think and and say explicitly that in fact, there was on the front page of the New York Times. There was a guy who said, are 8,000,000,000 people on Earth. It would be better if there were none, which is crazy. Definitely.
Speaker 0: You told me a joke about the you told me once a joke about the cows and plan, the problem with the cows. You remember that?
Speaker 1: Yes. Don't worry about the cows. The cows are fine. Cows are not going to destroy the environment. Cows are fine, yes.
Speaker 0: We have a lot of a lot of laws, European laws, again, all the people who work with them. It's a big issue for us because it seems to be green issue, but it's a very industrial issue for us.
Speaker 1: Yes. I think farming and cows are not do not have any meaningful effect on the environment.
Speaker 0: Yes. Underlying, please.
Speaker 1: Yes. Objectively, this is true. So the if you say like there's really only one thing that matters from an environmental standpoint, for carbon, which is that we are taking, billions, eventually, trillions of tons of carbon from very deep with it under the Earth and putting, Transferring it to the atmosphere and oceans. That's the that's actually really all that matters is taking vast amounts of carbon from underground where it's buried And moving it into the atmosphere by burning it. And if you do that for long enough, eventually, you will get to climate change.
No. I think the climate change alarm is somewhat overblown in the short term. It's still a concern in the long term, but I think it's exaggerated in the short grades. I have to try to thread the the needle here between what like, what is pragmatic and what is sensible? What really matters and what doesn't matter?
What really matters is that over the long term, over the course of the next several decades, that we gradually reduce how many millions and billions of tons of carbon that we move underground and to the atmosphere because we're running sort of a climate experiment that is dangerous. But I also don't think that I think of it as a fundamental civilizational risk. It it is it's not going to destroy life on Earth. It's not gonna destroy humanity. But it will create hardship if you change the climate over many decades.
Threats. My my my message is, like, I think much more pragmatic and, I think, correct and sensible. And I and I don't think we should demonize oil and gas. I think we should say, look, that is obviously necessary in the short term and the medium term too, and it'll take several decades to become sustainable. So I think if we just, Without getting too worried about it, seek to have a sustainable energy future gradually, then that's what will happen.
And so I think that some of the environmentalist movement has is part of what is causing people to lose hope in the future. So I guess what I'm trying to say is That we should have hope in the future. We should be excited about the future, and we should build the future we want.
Speaker 0: What about, you call it the woke mind yes. This is Jure. It's the name you gave to
Speaker 1: the Yeah. Yeah. Work mind That I
Speaker 0: so walk mind illness. What's that virus? Yes. So It's coming to Europe, I have to advise you, Yes.
Speaker 1: Well, this is not something you should import for America. Please don't import the woke mind virus as bad. So the the I mean, essentially, that to summarize maybe the woke wine virus, it consists of creating very divisive identity politics. So it actually amplifies work virus wine virus, in my view, amplifies racism, amplifies, frankly, sexism and all the isms. And while claiming to do the opposite, it it actually divides people and makes them sort of hate each other, and it makes people hate themselves.
And it's also anti meritocratic. It's not like it's not merit based. So you wanna have people succeed based on How hard they work and the talents, not who they are, whether they're man, woman, what race, or gender, what that stuff is all creating it's an artificial mental civil war that is created. And it's not and let me tell you, it's no fun. Okay.
It is like woke mind virus and fun are incompatible. There's no fun in that. No joy. Woke mind virus is all about condemning people instead of celebrating people. Like, when in the world, it just doesn't celebrate.
It's all about condemning and being divisive and and being just I think it's just evil, frankly. Credit. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: It's bad. So bad. Yeah. But you get a lot of problems saying so on on your social, in Excel, have this point of view. You are good friend of Obama administration, and now they don't really like you so much for this kind of speech you're doing in public or not.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I I mean, I I just I'm very pro human. I'm very pro civilization. I'm in favor of humanity and our collective consciousness expanding on Earth and going Beyond Earth, being a multiplanet species, a space faring civilization, and being out there among the stars and finding out the nature of the universe,
Speaker 0: Like,
Speaker 1: all the things that it's that seems like to me and and, you know, exciting things, something you can get really excited about is you're gonna get excited. Like, We wanna have ideas that make you look forward to waking up in the morning, look forward to the day, look forward to the future. And so you have to say, what excites you about the future. What moves your heart about the future? What makes you say, like, yes.
I'm glad about what will happen in the future. That's what we must focus on, And that's why we have to have a new generation. We've got to build, and we've got to grow. And like I said, we understand this understand the nature of this beautiful universe that we find ourselves in and The meaning of life or even what questions to ask about, meaning of life, let us explore this wondrous creation and have a good time doing it. That's my philosophy.
Speaker 0: Let me go back for a little because I want to ask you about your perception of Europe as a building, not as people. Because Europe do want a lot of integration of different cultures and has different approach to the immigration. We heard, Melanie did a lot on that with the Rami Rami I see in the first line of Albania. What do you think about the this approach of Europe approach, as building, I would say, as an establishment building?
Speaker 1: Well, I I should say, like, to be clear on immigration overall, I'm I'm very much in favor of legal immigration. I think that, Generally, I think one should welcome to a country anyone who is willing to work hard and is honest, has high integrity, and will add to Any given country. If somebody is an asset to the country, why not have them join? That is obviously a great thing to do. So I think it's good actually to have an increase in legal immigration and
Speaker 0: a simple Legal with paper, with Yeah.
Speaker 1: Just Some approval process Sure. But with a simple requirement that, look, if somebody is gonna add to a country, like, just really hardworking and My integrity, let them in. I think that's great. But if there's if it's illegal immigration and there's no filter, well, how do you know who's coming? You don't know.
So you have to have some basis for saying somebody should come in or not come in. And my argument is like it should be a very simple basis. Will they add to the country? Will they be a productive part of the economy? And do they admire the culture?
Do they want to join because of the culture? Then that's great. But if there's no process for that, then you you don't know. I think at least some number of the people that come in Well, will not be necessarily and and I wanna be careful because my words will be misconstrued. I'm not saying all illegal immigrants are are I think Probably, perhaps, most of them are good.
But there will be some if there's no process for reviewing, not at all. Then how can you say that everyone who is an illegal immigrant is going to be honest and hardworking? You can't say that because you simply don't know. So so I want to be clear. Top line, pro immigration, but let's increase Legal immigration, but we should stop illegal immigration.
I think this is just logical.
Speaker 0: You have a lot of company.
Speaker 1: Sorry. That's right.
Speaker 0: You can drink because I want to do the list of the Yeah. You have 5, 7 minutes to do that. I mean, I'm joking with SpaceX, X, Nerdy Inc.
Speaker 1: So many x's.
Speaker 0: All the exes.
Speaker 1: Guess what my favorite letter is?
Speaker 0: It's a good place to invest Italy, and it's a good place to invest sum of I mean, not your money, but some investment from your company of the American companies of the, I would say, competitive companies in this place. What's your opinion?
Speaker 1: No. I mean, I think Italy is an incredible country, incredible culture. I love visiting. I love the Italian people. I think you guys are amazing.
So so I I want, I I personally, I want the actually, I want the prosperity of Italy, and I want the prosperity of every country. Want the prosperity of humanity as a whole. And and like I said, I want us to have an exciting future where we're we're fired up about what's gonna happen and really excited. So, And I think Italy is a great place to invest. It's a great great country.
And but I do want to emphasize that at the I do worry that about the low birth rate. And if a company is to invest in Italy, they're like, well, you have to say, like, will there be enough people to work there? Very simple question. If the workforce is declining, then if the workforce is declining. Then who will work at the company?
It's both if there's no people, there's no people to work. Yeah.
Speaker 0: But I mean, in 50 years, 60 years
Speaker 1: I think it's even sooner than that, though. Employees. Worry about that. It's the problem. I I feel like a total Cassandra here because, like, I seem to be worried about it much more than other people.
But there just Needs to be people if you don't make a new generation of people, there is no new generation of people. So that's it. I know I'm being I'm being repetitive here, but just trying to state facts. So and, yeah. So
Speaker 0: It's a good place to invest.
Speaker 1: I no. I agree it's a good place to invest and a wonderful country. So please make more Italians is what I'm saying.
Speaker 0: You said once that the Internet is the system is the never I I I write down the your word, the never system of humanity. What's it
Speaker 1: Yes. Your set ones
Speaker 0: to me. Yeah. Long time ago, I agree. Intelligence for you. Sorry?
Artificial intelligence. If that is a nervous system, artificial intelligence, what's I mean, use another metaphor.
Speaker 1: You asked me, what do I think of artificial intelligence? Obviously Well, you could think of artificial intelligence as this is perhaps the the biggest inflection point in intelligence Since homo sapiens. Artificial intelligence is will be essentially sort of a new species or is a new species. So I think one of the biggest challenges if I look at, Say, civilizational risk. The the risk to the future of humanity, birth rate is one of them if we just don't have kids and dwindle away.
That's one which I've Talked a lot about. The other is, there's always like potentially nuclear war, of course, that kind of thing. Then AI is also an existential risk, and we need to be I think we need to be careful with the advent of AI. But it is very much it's very much a double edged sword. You can think of AI as kind of like the magic genie that, like, digital superintelligence will be capable of doing Anything.
Pretty much anything.
Speaker 0: But he doesn't have any consciousness. I'm wondering about that. I
Speaker 1: mean, There is a whole question of, like, what is consciousness? In fact, I so here's like a I would say I thought a lot about what is consciousness and where does consciousness arise. To say, like because I I think in terms of physics and at least if physics is true, then we go from a side of the universe where things are almost entirely hydrogen. And then if you leave the hydrogen app Long enough, eventually, it coalesces into stars, and then those stars explode, and then they re recondense. And so so like most of the mass in your body is was once at the center of a star, which is kind of wild, 1,000,000,000 of years ago.
And So so where along the lines of hydrogen to human does consciousness arise?
Speaker 0: You get very serious when you speak about that, Yeah.
Speaker 1: There are always a real question. If you leave hydrogen out In the sun long enough, it starts talking to itself. There we are, hydrogen talking to itself.
Speaker 0: How to deal with that? So if it is so important, how to deal I mean, red laws personal behavior. How to deal with that digital intelligence? Because it's a process, I mean
Speaker 1: I think we need to keep a close eye on artificial intelligence. I mean, I'm in favor of some regulatory insights just so that there's someone can at least be a referee. Like, if you think of any game, like, there's always a referee for a game For industries that affect the good of the people, there's our there are regulatory agencies that oversee those industries. Anything that's dangerous is overseen by some kind of referee or regulator. I think we should have the same thing for AI just to help ensure that it is beneficial the good part of AI is that we are headed for a future of abundance.
So AI and robotics will mean that there are no shortage of goods and services. There's there will be goods and services. If if you can think of it, you can have it, basically. So this is quite profound. Like I said, it's the magic genie.
AI AI and robotics will get you anything you want. Now usually, in these sort of fairy tales about magic genies, it doesn't turn out so well. You have to be careful what you wish for Even if what you wish for, our wishes. So it's just something we should be cautious about.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: On the plus side, it will bring many benefits, like I said, it will usher in an age of abundance. So the the positive scenario of AI is that there's an age of abundance and there are no shortage of goods and services, That any scarcity that exists will be only because we define it to be scarce. So and it just seemed to be somewhat of an inevitable thing, AI. So but is that supposedly that Anyway, so my recommendation on AIs, I think we want some kind of regulatory oversight just to make sure that it's beneficial AI. Great.
Speaker 0: We hope so. And what about what the governments like? I mean, they are elected by people like Melanie and this government and the other government, they have any risks? Or what do you think about this challenge for the executive of the nations about all these new process.
Speaker 1: Sorry. I'm not sure I understand the question.
Speaker 0: What's the risk for the government, of these intelligence? Are there any risks? I mean, the democracy is finished.
Speaker 1: Well, I think There's certainly risk of artificial intelligence affecting voting opinion, I suppose, and manipulating public opinion. So I think there's some risk of, yeah, AI manipulating the public. I think that's the summary. So yeah. Okay.
But I think pro like like I said, 80% probable that AI is beneficial, 20%, something like that.
Speaker 0: I'm always worried because we have a new government. It's 2 years, this government, almost 2 years. And we have a Europe for us. It's our artificial intelligence. It seems like artificial intelligence, but it's not very intelligent, sometimes Europe.
And so I'm wondering what do you think about the government and about Europe. For us, it's so important, the relation. I understand artificial intelligence in the future. But in the present, we have laws, constraints that comes from Europe. What do you think about that, if you have any opinion on that?
And what do you think about Italian government, which is trying to have a position, I would say a position, maybe only I don't know if there's more than a position. You want me to be more tough than a position? It's okay. What do you think? It's good to have a position in Europe to be, I mean, I would say different from a main course of European politics.
Speaker 1: Do you mean like Country decisions versus EU decisions? Or
Speaker 0: Decision about green, about the politics, immigration.
Speaker 1: I mean, I there's a separate question of, like, I think, regulations in Europe. There are too many regulations. In in general, not I'm I'm not speaking about specific case of AI. I think one could look at this as overall a fundamental function of a stable civilization. The longer that any given civilization is stable and does not have a a big war, the more rules and regulations will accumulate over time.
So rules, regulations, laws, They are immortal. They never die. So but people die. So if every year, more and more rules, regulations, and laws are added, you will eventually make everything illegal. And you can think of it Gulliver's Travels, where Gulliver if the nation is Gulliver, it's being tied down by 1 little regulatory string at a time.
And eventually, you have millions of strings, and then the giant can't move. And so and the I think there needs to be something where we delete rules, regulations, and laws. Because if we keep if we simply if all we do is add them, eventually, we will be able to do nothing.
Speaker 0: Shall I do some question about your companies? Because here, there are all the young people, not only the young people from an important Italian party. And they most of them use the social network, they use X. And I saw in the past days that the CEO of Disney said, I don't want to invest any advertising on X. And he's investing, for example, in the Meta, in the Instagram, and he said there are problems of I don't know which kind of problem they find on X2.
Speaker 1: I want to Child exploitation on
Speaker 0: Instagram? Yeah. What's going on? When important investor like Disney said something so tough on on X. What's going on there?
Speaker 1: Well, I think first of all, I think X will be fine, and we are actually already seeing advertisers return to X. So I guess they were, I don't know, upset with something I said or something. I don't know. But they advertisers, I think, are the brand advertisers are a little they're always worried about their brand and maybe I think maybe a bit more than they should be. But I think it's a short term issue.
Like I said, the advertisers, they sometimes get upset, but then they usually calm down and they return to advertising. So
Speaker 0: Come on. You know that there is the woke virus over there.
Speaker 1: Well, oh, yes. Face of problems.
Speaker 0: I don't want to answer it for you.
Speaker 1: Hey, I know that you're right. If we're going to fight the work mind virus, then the work mind virus will fight back. Unfortunately, Disney is deeply infected with with the woke mind virus. In fact, if you ask an AI what is the most work company on Earth. It's Disney.
Speaker 0: Lee.
Speaker 1: But and you have to say, what would I mean, I think they should be asking themselves, what would Walt Disney think of Disney today? I think he's turning in his grave. Think he's not happy. Sure. If the namesake of the company is not happy, that's probably a bad sign.
Because Walt Disney, what did he care about? He cared about bringing joy to people's lives. Important making wonderful things that children and families can enjoy. And he was he created some of the the coolest arts in the world and Stuff that even a 100 years after it's created, we still remember it. And it's still a major thing.
You have to say, how great was Walt Disney? It was amazing. But now, Disney, at least for now, is deeply infected with, work might have virus. I think that will that will change.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Oh, I hope so. Yeah. Right. The European Commission, they're not investing on X.
You know that.
Speaker 1: Maybe they're a little They got the woke my buyers too.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You don't care.
Speaker 1: I think so. And it's like, why are they importing this this crazy thing from America? It's like it's just some thing that was created basically by sort of far left crazy people in US colleges, and now it's spreading all over the world. And it's like like, the thing is, the work white virus, not a message of joy. It's a a message of division.
Sure. It's not a message of love. It's a message of hate. And I was like and so I I'm like like, let's I don't know. I'm in favor of like, to have a future that's got more love, more like, more and let us build a fun, exciting future.
And the vote Biden rights is all about condemning 1 group and condemning this, condemning that. It's like and it's also like just being like it just wants Scold you all the time and treat you like a I don't know. If he wants to be scolded, it's not fun. So anyway, I think we want to have a like, So I guess at its heart, my concern is that the work line virus is anti civilizational. End of civilization.
Anti civilization.
Speaker 0: If it represents a cost for your company, what's do you have a trade off between the cost of your position and the cost for the company? What's your choice. And what how much is important in your behavior, the the free speech standing? That's the question.
Speaker 1: I I do think free speech is incredibly important? Because if people cannot speak their minds and then we we won't have a democracy. Democracy is the foundation of democracy is freedom of speech.
Speaker 0: But also saying something So is laughing at that because he knows that it's so important for you. But Tell me more about the free speech because here it's very important. A person here couldn't speak for a lot of people because they were considering the mavericks words than that. Free speech for everybody is important, not just for the person who say the right things.
Speaker 1: Correct? Exactly. No. Exactly. Free speech means that free speech is only relevant.
Free speech is only meaningful when if if you allow people you don't like to say things you don't like. That's how it's working. That's how you know it's working. Because once you start to censor people you don't like saying things you don't like, It's only a matter of time before that censorship turns on you. Eventually, live by the sword, die by the sword.
Live by censorship, die by censorship.
Speaker 0: Ian, why? You spoke about free you bought Twitter for the free speech. Just for the free speech, not for the business inside, you both
Speaker 1: Yes. Well, I mean, here's the thing. So I think You have to say, like, if civilization is not strong, if civilization doesn't grow, then nothing else matters. Prophets don't matter if civilization collapses. There's no profits.
There's no we are not we cannot exist absent civilization. So sometimes people may say like, well, is this an altruistic thing? I mean, I think it's, For me, it feels altruistic. But even if it's even if one is not altruistic, even if one is very self centered, you have to say, if you simply think long term, You have to be pro civilization because you cannot exist without civilization. K?
Speaker 0: How important from 0 to 10 in the scale from 0 to 10, money. You are the richest person in the world. How is important money for you? From 0 to 10. 0 is the less important and it's the good one.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 0: I don't want to
Speaker 1: 1 or 2 or something?
Speaker 0: No. Come on.
Speaker 1: No. I mean 1 or
Speaker 0: 2. Just 1 or 2.
Speaker 1: Well, I have to say, like, the reason, I guess, I have what wealth or it's really just shares in the company is that I've created these companies. And these companies like SpaceX, Tesla's a 140,000 jobs direct worldwide at 5 times that number, maybe almost a 1000000 jobs when you look at the whole supply chain for is what Tesla's created. And then SpaceX is about 15,000 people and also like maybe full total supply chain, 50,000 people. So I mean, I basically, With the help of many talented people who built these companies and then the so called these wealth statistics simply they simply add up what The ownership is in the companies and say, okay, this is a certain amount of money. But I don't actually have that in money.
I have it in stock. I just it's just that the companies have succeeded, but
Speaker 0: How was the last launch of the SpaceX? Tell me something. That's a question, please, Giovanni. The last launch, I see Mao there sitting on the floor. Why are you sitting on the floor?
Are you worried about the high inflation? How was the last launch? You were optimist about your SpaceX being
Speaker 1: Yeah. So well, Starship, So the the exciting thing about Starship is that it's the 1st rocket design that could make life multiplanetary, that could enable a self sustaining Space on the moon and a city on Mars. So because it is it's not just a very large vehicle, but it is designed for full and rapid reusability, So that would lower the cost of access to space by, I don't know, maybe a 100 or more. And so and, basically, It's the 1st rocket that is capable of building a base on Mars and a base on the moon. Yes.
That's Yeah. So there's the great Italian physicist Enrico Fermi. I'm a big admirer of Fermi, and he had he was very good at asking profound questions. And one of his questions, which is called the Fermi paradox, is where are the aliens? And one of the explanations is that and perhaps, I think the one that I think is most appears to be most accurate is that consciousness is extremely rare that it's we people often ask me, have I do I know about aliens or something like that?
Ask that a lot. And the crazy thing is that I've seen no evidence of aliens whatsoever. This means that I think most likely, at least in this part of the galaxy, we are the only consciousness that exists. And so you can think of human consciousness really is like a tiny candle in a vast darkness, and we must do everything we can ensure that the candle does not go out.
Speaker 0: Great. We can finish with that. We can finish with that. Okay. We can finish with this.
Speaker 1: Oh, and so So it's worth reading about the Fermi paradox and because people have thought very hard about this because there are these because one of the things is like, well, maybe there are these great filters, And these civilizations don't pass these filters. One of the filters is do we become a multiplanet species or not? If we do not become a multiplanet species, then eventually, At some point, something will happen to the planet. Either it will be manmade or it will be something natural like a a meteor. Like, whatever killed the dinosaurs, For example.
So and then eventually, the sun will actually expand and will destroy all life on Earth. So if one cares about life on Earth at all, we should care about Becoming a multi planet species and eventually going out there and becoming a multistellar species and having many star systems. We want the exciting parts of science fiction to not be fiction forever. We want to make them real. And yeah.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you very much.
@farzyness - Farzad Mesbahi
Here's an edited version of the @benshapiro @elonmusk space on Antisemitism and free speech. This version removes the long pause at the beginning, weird transitions, pauses, etc. This version is ~30% shorter and flows better. Thanks @DavidCarbutt_ and team for the work!
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video conversation, Ben Shapiro, Rabbi Doctor Ari Lam, and Elon Musk discuss various topics including free speech, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and the importance of countering hate speech. Musk criticizes the ADL for falsely accusing him of being anti-Semitic and emphasizes the need to preserve free speech while combating censorship. They also touch on the role of social media platforms in promoting positive speech and the need for a new philosophy of the future. President Reuben Rivlin joins the conversation and raises questions about the line between free speech and hate speech. Musk suggests that the current line can be improved and emphasizes the importance of countering anti-Semitic views rather than suppressing them. The conversation also addresses the importance of empathy, forgiveness, and breaking the cycle of retribution, as well as the need for education and dialogue to combat anti-Semitism. They discuss the challenges of balancing free speech with preventing harmful content and the responsibility of platforms like Twitter to take action against hate speech. The speakers emphasize the power of technology in spreading hate and the importance of degrading the marketing capabilities of hate groups. They also discuss the role of social media in raising awareness about human rights violations and promoting understanding and forgiveness. The conversation concludes with a call for continued dialogue and improvement in creating a force for good.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey, everybody. Welcome. So glad you could join us here. I'm Ben Shapiro. I'd first like to thank everybody for being here.
I'd like to thank my cohost, Rabbi Doctor. Ari Lam. He's the CEO of OpenHZion. It's an organization dedicated to promoting Israel and Judaism through new media. And of course, we all want to thank Elon Musk, who asked if we could come together for what's sure to be a fascinating and meaningful conversation.
One of the things that nobody can deny about Elon is that he's willing to speak publicly on pretty much everything, and tonight is no exception. Now most of you have probably seen by now that Elon Musk is at war with the Anti Defamation League, the ADL. It's a group that was once dedicated to fighting antisemitism in in fashion. Of late, they've become significantly more partisan in their progressive politics, to say the least. Like a lot of progressive interest groups, the ADL would love more controls on on dissemination of speech at X.
They, like a lot of other organizations, are doing so by pressuring advertisers to move their dollars away from the platform. Well, a few weeks ago, Musk posted on Ron X, saying that the ADL has been trying to kill his platform, falsely accusing him of being anti Semitic. They said that if this continues, he said that, that he will have no choice but to file a defamation suit against App, which is obviously pretty funny considering it's the Anti Defamation League. Now as I said on my show when this is unfolding, Elon happens to be right on the merits here. The legacy media, multinational Idle Institutions, Left Wing Interest Groups.
They have been converging on Musk as a X, as a supposed source of rising hate speech, and they've been doing so in really opportunistic Hashan, from pretty much every angle. Until NUC took over X, they were largely running things in terms of which messages to silence or quash. Raj Bash. These institutions are generally in favor of more censorship, more restrictions on speech. That censorship has often been used to shut down not merely material we all agree is Rose or Vineland or Despicable, because they shut down a bunch of material that doesn't actually meet with approved narratives, whether we're talking about COVID or transgenderism or foreign policy.
These organizations get what they want on a lot of other platforms like YouTube and Facebook, but they're not getting it at x, which is one of the reasons why they're very, very angry. So for the 1st part of this conversation, Elon Musk and I are going to discuss what it takes to preserve free speech while battling activist third parties pushing censorship, dictating what is considered brand safe for advertisers. Rabbi Men. In the second half of this conversation, Rabbi Doctor. Lam is going to lead a discussion about how the ADL and antisemitism affect speech issues, discuss Elon's feelings and experiences regarding Najdias more broadly.
And then we'll open it up to some questions from a few esteemed leaders in the Jewish community. So that's enough from me. Without further ado, Elon, welcome to Rob, your own website. Really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: The Unfortunately, I think you inadvertently muted me.
Speaker 0: Well, I mean, that'd be a first, muting you on your own
Speaker 1: Rob. Spot on. I couldn't have said about it myself. That is exactly the situation. And it's it's absurd on I mean, first of all, Rob.
We've actually been tracking the the the hate speech views, anti Semitic or otherwise, and they've gone down since the acquisition objectively. I And we've had multiple third parties unrelated to us do their own analysis with a full data dump, and they have concluded the same thing. So that's also important, It was important to start off with some important facts. And if someone else is has is looking at the, you know, the the the the view counts on on Rob. On on deckstepk Twitter and has evidence to the contrary.
I'd love to know what what that is. But so to be accuse of something when all he ever has points the other direction. And my entire life story is, in fact, pro Semitic. And we had Walter Isaacson, who I believe is Jewish, spent 2 years with me, you know, we had complete access to every everything. Really, there's like no all required, nothing.
I didn't even you didn't even Have to clear with me who we talked to beforehand. And I think he might you know, he's
Speaker 2: a pretty smart guy. He might have picked
Speaker 1: on it. They might Martin figured it out, you know, if I was anti Semitic. It's just freaking absurd. You know, and and like a little sort of, you know, a few sort of, Rabbi. You know, little tidbits.
I I actually went to Hebrew preschool, Rachel Spiro, in South Africa when I was a kid. Now I don't know if I'm sort of Genetically Jewish or what? But I don't know. Maybe somewhere. I but I if if I I sound aspirationally Jewish.
Rabbi. Exactly. My name is Elon. And most of us are used to
Speaker 0: say zone. Zone is fired so hard. It's not it's not that fabulous.
Speaker 2: But Yeah.
Speaker 1: No. But I mean and and I'll tell you some other crazy stuff because, like, like, my name, Elon, is Actually, a very sort of Israeli name. It's a it's a short yeah. It's it's like being called Bob in Israel. And and and and then I I actually My father took me to Israel when I was 13, which is like about, you know, like a wild game.
I mean, basically, you put this back together. It looked pretty pretty, you know, Jewish adjacent. And I went to Israel, went to the wall, went to Masada. I went to been to Masada twice. And so I don't know if many people can say that.
And, Ashlag. You know, so and and, you know, I I wouldn't say Juan Javanugilo is the best. It's a little rusty, but it's pretty, pretty good. Heilin. I suppose at some point, we'll we'll be around.
Yeah.
Speaker 0: So I want to ask you a couple of questions. So first, I I would like to ask you sort of your definition of what free speech is supposed to look like on the platform absent pressure. So obviously, you've done a lot in terms of at free speech. You've personally intervened in cases like for for our outlet, what is a woman, to to get rid of restrictions on speech. Yeah.
But what what what exactly should speech look like, especially in sort of gray areas. So we all sort of agree on no child abuse, no terrorists, no threats of violence, no incitement. When it gets to things like hate speech, which As a variable definition, where do you draw the line?
Speaker 1: No, I think that's a very interesting question and difficult to solve. It's not one with a very easy answer especially with Rob. Regard to the exact line of what is or isn't, you know, hate speech. There's 1 person's hate speech. It's not it's another person's free speech Rev.
Much of the time. So I'd like but I think we sort of start with the with the obvious slurs and Rob. You know, the things that are, like, no brainers. And then beyond that, we we we like, the the the general principle, overarching principle, is operate According to the laws of the country that we are in, that's the general principle of nuclear. So and I think it's the right principle.
Rob. So in in the in the US, we're able to be much more free of speech in some other parts of the world, less less so where we have the choice of either providing the X platform or it being shuttled or throttled. But and I do believe also generally like If there is someone harboring, you know, hate and and and, you know, that that hate is based on Rob. Sort of incorrect assumptions or or bad knowledge. But the the best way to combat that hate is to hear it, Rabbi.
And then and then and then and then say why it's not true as opposed to somebody harboring Secret anti Semitism or or or some other form of hatred, never actually hearing the counterpoints as to why what they believe It's it's potentially false is false. And and so that, you know, that then you then you have all this hidden anti semitism or anti you name it. You know, I think actually often it's better that somebody says something and then gets dumped on, frankly, or is is corrected. And Hanks. And and, you know, it's like a good question.
You know, it it and and it actually, frankly, it's one of the things I like about United States, you know, and and and we should we need to make sure this remains the case. Rev. But in the United States, when there's we, for the most part, wash our laundry in public. So you can sort of see the dirty laundry Hahn For the most part, and and we need to keep it that way. And so sometimes it may it may appear that that that's something that is is bad, but actually everyone else has way more dirty laundry.
They just don't Rabbi. Show you. So it's just it's the kitten. You know? So
Speaker 0: Yeah. So so when when we talk about, you know, antisemitism, for example, appearing on Twitter, you you mentioned things like Slurs or Incitement to Violence or, for example, one of the textbook pieces of definition of antisemitism is is statements that the state of Israel should be obliterated, things like that. But when it gets to, you know, the if that stuff is out there, you you basically have 3 3 choices now. 1 is that you ban it. 2 is that you limit its reach.
You've talked about freedom of speech versus freedom of reach. And I kind of want to drill down with you on what that means. And then 3rd is And I wanted to ask you, what standards of demonetization ought to be used? So I suppose that it's the latter 2 parts that would be amazing in terms of clarity, would be the the freedom of speech and outreach and demonetization.
Speaker 1: Yes. Well, first of all, on that, just going in backwards order, but demonetization, Rabbi. And I should preface this by saying we do lots of dumb things, but these dumb things Rob. As the saying goes, one should not attribute to malice that which easily can be explained by incompetence. So we do lots of foolish things, but Rev.
And we want to fix that. And a bunch of these solutions have been in place for a decade and now I can't fix them all at once, but we are fixing them. Rev. So for example, there's a list I think Chayarajik was pointing out like testing the system, you know, and I've looked at this list and it's some of the terms on list I'm like, look, If that's a bad word, I'm clearly I need to look up the Gitmeid dictionary or something because that one I didn't realize was a bad word. Rob.
So this is that that list needs to be trimmed. That's the sort of not safe for advertising list. Now advertisers, you know, are can be all the skittish, you know. They Especially when you look at something like like Edge platform which is only 1% of the advertising market optimistically. You know, it's pretty easy if you've got like Rob.
1% of your ad budget just has too much hair on it. It's like not worth it. It's easy to just say like, well, for a lot of advertisers out there, well, It's not this is more pain and gain. You know, it relates to the advertisers of risk. It's like one Sort of article in sort of medium sized newspaper is enough to, you know, sometimes scare off advertisers on our platform.
A. It doesn't take much is what I'm saying. A loud noise in the room to scare advertisers. I mean, they're not sort of bold as brass, Rob. For sure.
Speaker 0: I mean, strategically speaking, what do what do you do about that? Obviously, we've had experiences with with organizations like the Global Alliance For Responsible Media Rabbi, that have tried to leverage advertisers again. For example, our platform, I know that those those same those same groups are meeting with Rob X, trying to determine advertising standards. How do you maintain free speech principles in the base of attempts to do what the ADL Al Orgharm, have been attempting to do, sort of control what sort of speech is allowed. Yeah.
Well,
Speaker 1: we're we're really trying to hear close to the law in the country like like the United States and other countries. So sort of Rabbi. So that's our general principle. And before banning things entirely, if something is illegal, well, it's legal Rob. And that needs to be banned or suspended or whatever cut out.
That's like, I guess, sort of fairly obvious. Just to kind of continue on the advertising front though, Rob. We right now sort of have a binary on off switch, which is silly because there is a spectrum of advertiser bravery for advertisers for not being sensitive to things that actually don't matter. So I think we should have really degrees of Rob. Advertiser safety, kind of like you've got movies.
You don't have like go, no go for movies. You've got like sort of all ages PG-thirteen, your sort of Rob. Are an excellent stuff, like x rated scenarios because media is x rated. So, you know, so that if you're an advertiser, you and and and with with Actually, with a cost tier where the sort of safest, safest SO holding quotes say, you know, advertisers, we want the safest Sort of situation, you can have that, but then you can just go all the way up to even advertising next to sort of not state for work stuff, you know, even if it's like some something pretty spicy. As an advertiser, you should be able to say, well, I don't mind.
That's fine. It because that that's actually going to cost lost. That will cost less Rev. Her impression or ultimately, her sale of whatever they're trying to sell because, you know, it's like that real estate is Rob. Not as sought after.
And so advertisers really should be able to pick like maybe, I don't know, within 4 or 5 gradations Rev. I'd like to thank my cohost, Rev. I'd like to thank my cohost, Rev. I'd like to thank my cohost, Rev. I'd like to thank my cohost, Rev.
I'd like to thank my cohost, Rev. I'd like to thank my cohost, Rev. I'd like to thank my cohost, Rev. I'd like to thank my cohost, Rev. I'd like to thank my cohost, Rev.
Rabbi. For the SpaceX StarLink satellite network, I would just say go. We'll take it all including the NSFW. Fine. No problem.
Who cares? So it's really that'll be a higher return than having all these stringent requirements. So, yeah. And then for the actual line on sort of where it's more dubious, it's legal, but it's still hateful. Rob.
The way we're trying to deal with this right now is algorithmically which is that Rob. If we show people content that makes them want to leave the system and if they're getting sort of hammered with hate speech, probably they will have like that. Rob. Now yeah. So the the other one is supposed to be showing posts on the x system that are interesting, informative, funny, And otherwise useful to people on the system.
Now it doesn't always succeed at that, but that is the goal. So obviously, if we just I'd hammer people with hate. They're going to leave the platform, and that's, we'll lose that sort of customer, I guess. And Rob. Yeah.
So so that that's sort of the the basic situation. And then and as I mentioned, the the the view count where you say, like, okay. How many HP's views have there been Rob. Pre and post Twitter pre and post the acquisition. And they've dropped by at least 30% and I think they've continued to decline
Speaker 0: I Just because we've made the algorithm better. More transparent. It's certainly better than a lot of the buzz. And that's helped an enormous amount. I remember that in ADL that's targeting you now declared me the single greatest recipients online of antisemitism in 2000 and I will say that that has dropped markedly since 2016 and including after you took over.
So I did want to ask you, Elon, about one of the issues that's coming up that generally goes to free speech And you have this, as I mentioned at the top, combination of both private organizations, some of which fundraise, some of which make money off of calling calling for censorship and governments that are putting pressure on social media platforms in order to do the work that they really are not legally allowed to do certainly in the United States. And Ravi. And so, yeah, how how can you stand up and and what sort of pledges can you make to to users of Twitter with regard to these sort of backdoor pressure attempts by both the advertisers. I mean, I think that your sort of great data sphere, it helps. It's not going to totally overcome, obviously, the power of great consortiums of advertisers who decided they are, for example, only going to check the box on safe advertising.
They're not going to broaden out the spectrum, but price differentials hopefully will make a difference Einstein. When it comes to government, what
Speaker 3: do you do?
Speaker 1: Our policy is to resist with any attempt to scam censorship to the maximum Rob. So in the U. S, by far the biggest pressure comes from essentially, Rob. I'd say fairly far left activist groups. Now when and it tends to act as sort of coalitions, like back.
There's a whole bunch of them. And they'll, you know, go right, but whatever 16 activist groups whatever, you know, so little bit of it as a pack. But Rabbi. What they're trying to do there is really oppose left often extremely far left values Rob. And other platforms under the guise of hate speech, but it is in fact a matter of politics Rob.
Or really views that would, I think, the general public would consider to be somewhere between left and So it's like really, I mean, it's really disturbing, frankly. I I mean, and I I think yes. And you and you've been the the attacked you. You've been a target many times. So, And and actually the the thing you mentioned, which is like is is like for from where you guys are like they're like, oh, this is all state speechless.
Well, have you seen any? And they're like, well, no. I haven't seen any. Well, at Okay. Then, you know, like the BBC reporter where he was like, oh, the platform's filled with hate speech.
There's so much hate speech. You can't believe it. And I said, well, name one example, Rabbi And he couldn't. And I'm like, well, so for so much, Haseas, you can't make a single example, not even one, what's top of the list? Oh, nothing.
You can't even think of anything.
Speaker 0: Rabbi. The overweening panic is obviously political in nature. I mean, the fact that you're heterodox politically is clearly one of the driving forces here. And that brings me to 1 final question before I hand it over to to Rabbi Lam. And that has to do with some of the other social media platforms.
So Russell Brand, who obviously is a super controversial figure but has Also come under, you know, significant accusations with regard to sexual assault, rape, all the rest. He was recently demonetized on YouTube for the accusations that have not even resulted in the arrest as of yet. What do you make of social media platforms people, for things they are doing offline that have not resulted in, for example, criminal charges as of yet.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I absolutely think we should know. It should be first of all, I mean, there's there's 2 pastors on I mean, Russell Branding I actually checked, by the way, with some friends of mine who worked closely with him, A woman that worked closely with him and they said he was he was actually a gentleman and had a very nice and they did not feel and especially on movie sets, you know, if you're Atkins. If something's happened in a movie set, news travels fast. And people I know said, no, this isn't this is not the push.
Russian brand is not is not a bad guy. So that the and then this separately, you know, even if there's some of these did happen, there needs to be Rob. Obviously, a conviction here. Not not it can't be guilty until proven innocent because obviously there were we're just sort of in the witch burning phase here, which Rob. Just being declared a witch is enough to make you a witch and be burnt.
I think this witch voting instincts might be like deep seated, frankly. Rob. So, but we can't have that. It's because you obviously, anyone could be accused at any time of false charges. Rob.
And and we we can't be destroying their lives on the basis of potentially false accusations. So yeah. Rabbi. And I'm not sure if charges have you has has anyone even filed charges in in the Russell Brand case?
Speaker 0: My understanding is is not at this point. The act is and I believe that the police has been soliciting for for actual evidence at this point seeing if they can bring charges, but I I don't believe the charges have actually been filed. So, Elon.
Speaker 1: I wanna hand over to you. Layer of outrageous, you know. I do wanna hand over to you. He doesn't even have charges, guys. This is crazy.
And and and now Russell's obviously been rattling the cage, Rob. You know of the powers that be and these alleged accusations from people we don't know who, where there's not an actual lawsuit. Why now? You know, because these things happened many, many years ago. What what's the what what why now?
Rob. And it's like it seems like an odd coincidence that it's happening when when Russell Russell is really great gaining traction, questioning Hello. Conventional wisdom. And, you know, and, you know, somebody say, oh, well, he's promoting conspiracy theories and whatever, but I think we're running out of conspiracies Rob. Theories that didn't turn out to be true.
And so in fact, for those out there in the conspiracy theory community, we really need some more material and Rabbi, you know, because, you know, what do we got left here? Conspiracy theorists of of the world. We we please get creative. We need more material.
Speaker 0: So at this point, I wanna hand it over to Rabbi Lamb, to talk on with you more about Judaism and faith and antisemitism. Rabbi Lamb, thanks so much for taking up the baton here.
Speaker 4: Ben, thank you so much. Elon, I don't know Ives. How far you got in Hebrew Preschool, but the communities that Ben and I grew up in, we would we'd call you Abal Abayas, Jose. You're the the owner of the house that we're by Justin right now, so thank you for having us and for engaging especially because the the topic we're in the middle of discussing is a critical one. And And I'll tell you the funny thing is that I kind of think in some crucial ways this whole topic is to an extent like a red herring.
It's a distraction from the conversation serious Jewish people of all backgrounds I. Should be having. And what I mean by that is, on the one hand, combating antisemitism is is critical. I mean, the holocaust is still in living memory, for crying
Speaker 1: out loud.
Speaker 4: But but Organizations like the ADL, whether they mean to or not, make it seem like that's literally all the Jewish people are about, fighting antisemitism. But here's the thing. Like, here's the thing. Like, Yevgen. We are the stewards of quite literally the most influential tradition of wisdom in the history of humanity beginning with the Hebrew Bible.
I mean, like the best selling book of all time, and those I. Ideas formed the backbone of Western civilization. They're at the absolute foundation of the American experiment. So when I reflect on this topic as a whole, The question to me is less whether the ADL is good or bad or maybe just, like, irrelevant.
Speaker 1: The more They they definitely have an impact on advertisers. I can tell you that.
Speaker 4: Right. Right. Right. So I guess, like, Jewishly, but irrelevant, but more, my question is how is it possible that we ended up in a situation Rob. And where the vast majority of human beings, certainly in the US, when they think of a Jewish voice, like a voice representing Jewishness, they Probably think of like Jamin Greenblatt who, you know, you could say he represents no one.
More importantly to me, doesn't even pretend to play in the field of great Jewish ideas and texts. Like most Americans say think of someone like that rather than thinking immediately of some of the great Jewish minds of today who are household names for people who study Jewish wisdom On a daily basis, Rabbi Asher Weisz, Rabbi Hershel Schechter. Like, I truly think if we're gonna fight antisemitism, then, of course, there's a role for back. Combating those who hate us, but the majority focus should be on, you know, in the technologist space, what you'd call like our core purpose, our core mission, bringing extraordinary Jewish ideas into the societal moral and political conversation in a serious fashion. Like, it should be a positive effort.
Speaker 1: I agree.
Speaker 4: So like if you and like if you really want to combat Antisemitism teach Jewish ideas. Like, send people to visit the greatest repository of Jewish teaching in history, the currently thriving why dtour.org. Like, I actually talk about great Jewish ideas, and that's what I Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's what I
Speaker 4: want to bring you in to the conversation, Elon. Like, In many important ways, you're probably the standard bearer in our day of the scientific revolution. You're one of the living heirs of Figures like Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, William Harvey, and it's not an accident that all those figures placed the Hebrew Bible and Ravi commentaries at the center of their work, and they all studied the Hebrew literature quite seriously. And in particular, one of the things they admired about the Bible is the revolutionary idea that human beings are created in the image of God like in the book of Genesis because Yeah. God is the creator.
He's an inventor as it were, and then so too are we charged with doing the same. We have to be creative. We have to be innovative. So my question for you is, like, We normally think of faith or biblical religion on the one hand and technological progress on the other as incompatible or at least like intention. There's like a whole Silicon Valley episode about this, but is Bob.
Speaker 1: I believe I said being religious is borderline illegal in Silicon Valley.
Speaker 4: Right. Right. Exactly. But, like, is it possible that that's, like, a weird quirk of the 20th? But, like, is that maybe, like, The weird quirk of the 20th century, like, we really want a robust culture of innovation and technological creativity.
So you've said in the past that we need a new philosophy of the future. So would a theory of the human person bearing the divine image of a creative god, of an inventor god, fit that bill? Like, should people in 2020 I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean, it really speaks to my heart, I'd say, because as someone who who loves sort of inventing and technology and discovering up I mean, Discovering the truths of the universe, creating wonderful new things that didn't exist before, wonderful new technologies that that help people. You know, I think sometimes I hear this among among absurd things, people saying like, oh, the world today is so terrible. I'm like, You really should read history, okay, because it's awesome. And let me tell you, you don't want to be in Masada, you know, when the Romans will be seizing it. That wasn't fun At all.
Speaker 4: Right. The the people who went to the people who have actually started on Masada only got to go there once. That was it.
Speaker 1: Yes. Exactly. A one way trip. You know? No, they were super badass and that's why we that's why they celebrated today.
Like I said, I was there and I encourage the people to visit Masada and to visit Israel Rob. And visit the various Tully sites and see these incredible places for themselves. I've done that twice. So and Rob. I think like just sort of speaking broadly, I think it is good to have a sense of wonder about the universe, about this incredible Rob.
Existence that we have, I think it is I think it is we we should be trying to understand it more, trying to understand creation, and we should be Rob. Building beautiful and amazing new products and technologies that make our lives better and also allow us to explore the universe Rob. And see the incredible work of the creator or however one might define the in fact, we exist. Where do we come from? The creator of the thing of the existence that we we we live in.
I think we wanna go out there. We wanna explore and and see at this incredible creation. And sometimes I think like whatever you make refer to the creator as, the universe was created somehow. And Rob. And I think we should, do our best understand and appreciate this incredible existence of creation.
Speaker 4: So out. I wanna run a theory of of ex bio and see what you think. So the American political experiment is anchored predominantly in the Hebrew Bible, particularly in the book of Deuteronomy. It's by far the most cited work in the political writings of the American founding era, much more than Locke and even more than Montes. And it was because the founders looked to by Deuteronomy and saw that it lays out a vision for political order which all the great political thinkers of the Renaissance called the Hebrew Republic.
Now Deuteronomy's vision of society is based on 4 elements of which the American founders, like, really explicitly borrowed 3. Right? There's a chief executive with limited powers. There are teachers of the law. There's a legislature, and then there's a court system.
But there's The 4th element in Deuteronomy that's missing from the American system, and that's the profit. And you can see why the founders left that out because it's an engineering nightmare. Right? Like practically speaking, It's not something you can build into an institution. It's spontaneous.
It's like a force that's meant to critique institutions or all of society itself from the outside. And that's actually precisely why profits are so important. Like, healthy societies need a mechanism for reflection and critique from the outside. So you need profits, but you can't build them. So like From an engineering perspective, how do you get them?
So my question to you, Elon, is this. If I were making the case for the importance of social media and X in particular, Might this be a place to start? Like, instead of relying on just a plain free speech argument, we could also say like, hey, if we're ever gonna identify those crucial voices of outside We need to be willing to we have to have, like, a high tolerance for a pretty wide range of weirdos and outsiders.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 4: You know what I mean? By Deuteronomy warns like false prophecy is gonna be a real problem. But if you want to find 1 good property, you gotta tolerate a lot of bad ones. Right?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Rob. You gotta kiss a lot of frogs before you get the prints.
So Yeah. I I know what to say, so that I agree with everything you said.
Speaker 4: Meaning, but like that way, like, x x wouldn't just be like A negative good, right, like we're
Speaker 1: Yes. No, no. Exactly.
Speaker 4: Noncunitive. It would be a positive good. We're looking for something good.
Speaker 1: No. Bhanit, we're trying to make Rabbi. The X Platform, a force for good for civilization. Now this may sound somewhat high minded and somehow they may not believe me. But The reason that I've that the reason for the acquisition was to help turn, formerly known as Twitter, now IX, into being Rev.
A positive force for civilization, and I felt it was increasingly a negative force and a force with the amount of I. And sort of political sort of control pushing towards values that I think like do not align with Rev. Probably 90% or not maybe even 99% of the world, and that that's really that's that's not good. So the purpose, at You know, it was it wasn't because I thought, well, this is a great way to make tons of money is by and and to make my life easier. I I was fully aware that The acquisition of of Twitter was financially dubious.
Now at the end of the day, we're with other investors, so I'm gonna make sure that I Ultimately, it does pay off for those investors. But it's certainly I've been coming into it thinking, wow, I've got a real gold mine of actual I money here. That's that's not not not the case. Best case scenario, Twitter historically has been a sort of a nonprofit essentially, meaning they're not a nonprofit, and they didn't make at profit.
Speaker 5: I was
Speaker 4: just I was just gonna get into a for profit PH.
Speaker 1: Yes. I mean, look. So and I was I was also aware that I was gonna get massive amount of flak. Rob. For those, you know, I One mission accomplished there.
Yeah. No. No. Exactly. So just to be clear, that hopefully people don't think I'd be pretty pretty dumb slash diluted Rob.
To to have thought that, wow, this is an easy money and war result of criticism of buying acquiring Twitter. That's this is a hard work. So so what I'm saying is that, you You know, I actually did the acquisition because I wanna turn that thing into a a a force for good and increasingly so, something that is useful and entertaining and and Rabbi. That's the intention, and it's I'm glad you brought up this point because the goal is not merely to breakeven, Rev. Which would be sort of stopping his speech.
It's it's increasing positive speech and increasing things that you learn. Rob. Sometimes those things that one learns just of unpleasant truths, whatever, and if something's true, it's true. But so Hanks. That's the goal.
That's the aspiration is to make something as useful, entertaining and big picture, it is a force. When we look back at it for many years from now. We say, hey. That was a force for good for civilization. I love it.
Speaker 4: Now my my last question for you before I hand it off is is so the The 1st century Roman historian Tacitus, he had when he first encountered the Jews, he accused us of being a lazy people. Why? Well, because, you know, our bible had this crazy idea in it. It was the idea of a Sabbath, like 1 whole day a week where nobody works. The idea was ludic it was like ludicrous for the Roman Empire.
Right?
Speaker 1: But none of these guys.
Speaker 4: Now in the end, like, jokes on pacifists because the Roman Empire collapsed, Apps and now it's just like a meme on TikTok while the biblical Sabbath is observed by billions of people across the globe. So, like, scoreboard. But Yeah.
Speaker 1: Aside
Speaker 4: from that, I'm curious what you you're like one of the most productive people on Planet by any, like, objective measures. So I'm curious what you think about a revolutionary institution like the Sabbath. It's like a regular Rabbi Recurring day of turning work off to focus on core values like Rabbi Jonathan Sacks called it covenantal time. Is that an underrated, overrated, properly rated idea in a high productivity society? What do you think?
I Society. What do you think?
Speaker 1: Well, I think the the general principle of day of rest is a good one. Now it's a principle that I I can't say that I I adhere to. I I I take my ratio is more like, well, if I take 3 days off per year, that seems like, Rob. You know, about right to me. But but I think for for most people, it is a a good thing.
And, you know, in the modern era, somewhat have extended that to The weekend, effectively, 2 2 Sabbath days. You know, there's there's a word for the weekend. Right. Mission creates. Yeah.
So there's a bit so in fact, it would seem that Rob. One of those ideas not really thought this out if it was a good idea, but decided we need to double down on that. So, you know, and I think that's generally good. And, Rabbi. Yeah.
I mean, I think if what if you think about the the sort of what's the sort of over optimization if, you know, it's really saying area under the curve of Rabbi. Human happiness. So if you take all the humans and their average happiness and how much happiness is that, and look looking also into the future so that we're not, you know, I because obviously, one can do things that make one happy for it in the very short term, you know, like some sort of sort of narcotics or something like that. Rob. But then on we'll probably not make you happy in the long term.
So but if you look at sort of divestiture we should be trying to optimize for is the total happiness of humanity, Rob.
Speaker 4: I love it, and I think that's a perfect place to hand it off to Asher Gold to bring on some other voices.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Ari. Ravi. Both you and Ben are staying with us for the 2nd part of this conversation.
Speaker 5: And thank you so much, Jonas.
Speaker 1: You're welcome.
Speaker 6: So, please, Rev. Now in order for us to be able to hear all of our distinguished guests, we will do it 1 guest at a time. Ravi. One technical request to all of the speakers. After you're introduced, please unmute yourself so that we can be heard so that you can be heard.
Rav Hajj. Our first guest is president Reuben Rivlin. President Reuben served as Israel's tenth president, and he is currently member of the steering committee of the European Jewish
Speaker 1: Is Rabbi Cooper speaking perhaps or I don't know who it is.
Speaker 6: Yes, President Rivlin. Rabbi. Yeah.
Speaker 7: Best time here. Good evening to all of you from Jerusalem, and I feel at home once I call you Elon Rabbi. Because Elon is a very popular name in Israel.
Speaker 1: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 7: Do you hear me? If you hear me, I can go on. And I have been listening to Rav. Very carefully, to your words, and I have only 1 question because we are facing same problems in Israel. Rabbi.
I don't know if you know, but, throughout my career as a politician, as a member of the The government, as member of Knesset, and as the speaker of the Knesset, the president of the Knesset, and at the end, a leader of Rabbi. The 10th president of Israel after Shimon Peres, and I all my life fought for civil liberties, including free free speech, civil rights, and also the view as a Rabbi Cornerstone of free society. You know, I think, and it I would like to ask you a question, and it is quite a tough question. Well, you actually draw the line, unfortunately, using Rabbi. Sweet speech all over the world spread, and they are spreading hatred, racism, frustrating, really feelings of Reva.
Of really bad feelings, one to each other. So my question to you, Alan, is, what Rob. There will be it in your eyes, the case in which would also we consider and Rabbi. And agree agree together as a as a person if a person should not be banned or is sincerely by Rabbi. His words because sometimes in Israel also, and we run and we wish to run and we believe that we can run Rabbi.
A Jewish democratic state, but we have along with us the Palestinians and people, the Arab Israeli people. And sometimes, Rabbi. There are people in Israel who really believe that a Jewish democratic state mean a democrat democracy only for the Jews. And That is something that we are fighting very, very hard and very, very seriously against those thoughts. Rob.
And we are discussing many times where to draw the line.
Speaker 1: Yes. I know. Once, I'm open to ideas here. Rob. I think we're drawing line currently, maybe not in the best place, but it's not terrible.
As Ben Shapiro was saying, You know his personal experience is actually it's improved. And, you know, I mean, I'm aware of that old sort of trope of like, you know, I I have a Jewish friend. I I don't have a Jewish friend. I think probably I have twice as many Jewish friends as non Jewish friends. That's why I think I have absolutely respect.
I think I'm Jewish basically. So Reva. And soon on and they use they use the X platform. And I and and I was like, do you guys see anything? Like, they're like, nope.
It's like, okay. Well, let's we'd be you want to look at things statistically and then also just confirm that there's not some statistical errors with Rev. Seeking as many anecdotal points as possible. So I think we're not actually in a in a terrible place. And if we want to get to a better place, then But like I said, ultimately optimizes for the good of humanity collectively.
And and and also mentioned, like, if if somebody does express some anti semitic views within reason, I think you sometimes wanna have that be said so that they they can hear the counterpoints. If you never hear the counterpoints, then they're They're gonna just be hidden anti Semites, and that's not gonna do that that's perhaps worse. So a prominent Acht. I have talked to Kanye or Ye many times and said because he sort of Rabbi. You know, he says he's very Christian and and and, you know, sort of obviously, you know, there's a reason why today our Christian is often one word.
It's, you know, Rob. Based on a lot of the same things. So and and one of the principles of Christianity is, you know, love anybody like their self Rob. And basically, have empathy for others and turn the other cheek, which is do not hold a do not hold a grudge or seek revenge because And, you know, if you if you do an eye for an eye, that an eye for an eye turns the whole world blind as the saying goes. So you wanna there is actually great wisdom to forgiveness Rob to in order to stop the cycle of retribution.
So and this is generally something I would encourage everyone throughout the world to think about is is because the national instinct is revenge, retribution, but then, you know, you get retribution, then they get a sweep or a group retribution on you, and you have this endless endless cycle. And we want to try to break Some of these endless cycles of retribution, that's part of the challenges you know, that's that's at the heart of many of the challenges that that Israel faces Rabbi. Is is the this feeling that, you know, the strong feelings of of retribution among among this, you know, Palestinians or whatnot. Rob. So I think those principles are very wise and I can't say I've been, I think I've made some progress there to be frank with Rabbi.
With Yay. And and that so that so that that's perhaps better than just completely excluding it. And, you know, then try you know, you try to get to the bottom of, like, where is coming from, you know, and frankly, I wasn't clear on where where it's coming from in his case. But but, you know, I I did try I'd like to thank my cohost, Rabbi. Values, then then you should, you know, if you you should act according to them.
And and so, you know, Rabbi. Basically, can we turn an antisemite into someone who is at least neutral, if not proud?
Speaker 7: Absolutely. I really believe that Rabbi. You as a real somebody, a self made man by all meanings and to be appreciated by the whole world can do a lot by Rob. By defining, of course, the help to draw a line in order to find the way, in order to make it the real definition Rabbi. When it is should, when we can allow it, when we are talking about civil rights, about free speech and And when we are talking about insight and, that goes also in all over the world all over the world and all over the free world.
Rabbi. We would be we would appreciate really discussing those met with you because I really believe that, Rabbi. You can help a lot in order to bring to the whole humanity in 2¢. And we are looking forward to see you in Israel Rabbi. Because you are doing so much, and we are doing something in Israel that could help the entire world.
And I hope to see you Rabbi
Speaker 6: Abraham Rabbi Cooper from the Simon Wisdom Center. Rabbi Cooper, please. Rabbi Cooper, please unmute yourself.
Speaker 1: Let's see. Where do we go from here?
Speaker 6: Okay. Rabbi Cooper. Rabbi. Okay.
Speaker 1: I hear a very quiet voice. Okay.
Speaker 3: Is that me?
Speaker 6: Perhaps. Okay. Okay. Okay. So so Rabbi.
Please go ahead.
Speaker 5: Hi, Elon. Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Can you hear me well? Yes. No problem.
Speaker 5: Okay. First of all, let me just tell you, I served as rabbi at Oxford for 11 years and therefore hosted presidents, prime ministers, captains of industry. I say this sincerely. There's a famous expression that words that emanate from the heart penetrate the heart. You can't fake sincerity.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I have probably never heard as nice a Compliments about the Jewish people as the two words, aspirationally Jewish. I think you are indeed aspirationally Jewish. I'm Gonna respectfully disagree with my dear colleague, Ben Shapiro. I think being Jewish is a wonderful thing and most Yeah.
Speaker 1: I agree.
Speaker 5: We we are creatively disruptive. There back. There are people who are catastrophically disrupt destructive, the the Hitlers, the Stalins, then the and they hate those who are creatively disrupt disruptive, Ira. And you are a creative disruptor. Now so instead of putting you in the defendant's chair and that you have to that you have to defend against false accusations about antisemitism, which is itself very unfair, and that happens to Israel all the time.
Israel has to deny that it's a a Nazi regime. Yeah. Yeah. Let me say the exact let me say the let me say the exact opposite.
Speaker 1: My apologies.
Speaker 5: Is that is that amazing? Yeah. So it's not fair to put you in the attendance chair. That's what your opponents are seeking to do so that you spend all your time you know, in politics, they say that spending is is losing.
Speaker 1: Sure. Sure.
Speaker 5: So let me let me rather talk about some of the Creative disruption in terms of Jewish values that you as the non Jew who is aspirationally Jewish is bringing to the world. I'm very into values. I run the World Values Network together with the rich together with the richest black man in America, Robert Smith, the biggest black philanthropist. We we created Values University to get people like you to do short by talk about your foremost values. There are 3 things that I wanted to quickly discuss.
Number 1, I'll go through them and then we can discuss them 1 by 1. I love Your emphasis on large families and many children.
Speaker 1: Yes. So important.
Speaker 5: I believe it is the last prejudice in society that you can look at People who have a lot of kids as, as backward, as neanderthalic.
Speaker 1: It's yes. And in fact, as As you know, as I I I made sure that as as did father Abraham. Yeah. So so so I'm like, hey, guys. I'm actually super pro human, Prohumanity.
I love humanity and I think it makes me sad when I suspect perhaps some people don't of humanity. Like you know there's an extinctionist movement like there's a guy on the front page of New York Times literally quoted as saying there are 8,000,000,000 people in the world and he wished it would be better if there were none. That's That's an actual movement. That's an extinctionist movement, which is like saying genocide to all of humanity, which is so crazy. I didn't know what it saw.
And, you know, and it's somewhat of a past in some ways, an ingrown toenail of the environmental movement. Now I'm an environmentalist. I think I've done past more I. Good for sustainable energy use. And I don't know if simply what Tesla, I mean, there's more electric cars than all of our competitors in mind, Rob.
So at least in the West. So but the sort of mad extension Rabbi. Environmentalism environmentalism in the limit has people concluding mostly implicitly but sometimes explicitly Rabbi. That humanity is obliged on the state on the face of the earth that the scourge that must be extinguished, you know, things that would would that Rob. We have to agree with kind of thing since he's more selective.
But it's like you can't have that this is total madness. We should be expanding Rabbi. We should be extending to the stars. We should be an exciting space faring civilization and to
Speaker 5: Rabbi. Well, in and the very first commandment of the Bible, of course, is to have kids, to appreciate the innocence of children, to appreciate the creativity, Hanks.
Speaker 1: Both involved in
Speaker 5: the fascination. Exactly. And everything that you said before about not having revenge in in hearts are, you know, children are Unlike Freud who saw them as as, you know, little these tiny little narcissists. In Judaism, we believe that there's this beauty to kids. I have to tell you that the that the view, back.
The the the photos of you bringing your beautiful little son x to the meeting with Erdogan. Now I'm not here to put you into uncomfortable position. Erdogan is not, you know, a big Jewish favorite. He's called us Nazis and Hitler and and he tries to be the strong man, and suddenly you come to this meeting with him back. Holding this beautiful baby and it's so disarming, like, you're not ashamed to bring your son, your baby son, to a meeting with the head of state.
And it's a it was a tremendous statement of you leveraging the kind of credibility and power that you've amassed in order to promote the innocence of a child and being a father. Atkins. And I love what you said, how you were raising him. Honestly, it was one of the most touching things that I saw in the media this year.
Speaker 1: I mean, I I a little You know, kid kids are I mean, I and I am I I I think people maybe if that if they haven't had kids, don't realize that Kids are the source of the greatest happiness because, you know, I think for the best charity people, they really love their children. And When you love something, you derive happiness from their happiness. So, you know, it's it's when when my kids are happy that at That makes me happy. Unfortunately, when my kids are sad, it also makes me sad. It's not all, you know, good.
But but if if my kids are happy, you know, it it Rabbi. It warms my heart, and it makes me happy. So so I actually tell tell friends I have many friends who have no children Reva. Or perhaps only 1. And and I I really I'm I'm constantly urging them to to at least, you know, at least have 1 or 2, ideally 3 if possible.
And in In fact, this is a I do this so frequently that people already know the subject matter when I'm when I'm glad to say something, which is why you you you were trying to push me to have kids. I'm yes. I am. I am.
Speaker 5: No. But I I I I I I love instead of organizations like the ADL criticizing you, you have done more To promote this idea of children, you you have to understand how important this is for Jews, especially. We are not a proselytizing faith. We don't have an army of missionaries. Unless we have large families, the Jewish back.
People disappear. There were 20,000,000 18,000,000 Jews before the holocaust. 6,000,000 were murdered. That still left 14,000,000. We haven't grown at all in those 80 years.
We're still at 14,000,000. That yeah. That's it. Because the Jewish birth rate is so is so low. So instead of the Jews criticizing you, you're the 1st person With real technological credibility, he doesn't get up and say that that the forward thinking of a society is actually determined by about a lowering birth rate that you know, declining birth rates which is what we hear all the time.
Speaker 1: Yes. I wasn't kidding earlier when I said that most of my friends Ben, so are are are Jewish. Now they're not all sort of religious, but some of them are. But the a number of them have not had children at all. And I'm like, there's such and these are people who are incredibly smart and talented.
They have a great heart. At the You want more of them in the world is what I'm saying. You know?
Speaker 5: Yeah. And by the way and by the way I've had
Speaker 1: a few more kids. Come on, I've
Speaker 5: on. And by the way by the way, I mean, you have 10 kids. Thank God. I just wanted to express also my sympathy in the in the, really compelling, Walter Isaacson biography, which I finished in 1 Friday night Sabbath. That's one good thing about not using technology.
I read read the whole book in in the night, speed up the whole night. When you describe when you describe losing your first child in your arms. I gotta tell you I had tears in my eyes. That was, very Yeah. I'm sorry.
Very, very sadder.
Speaker 1: The saddest sadder than I thought a human could feel.
Speaker 5: Yeah. It was Rabbi. Very, very as a as a father of 9 children myself, it was very heartbreaking. The next thing I wanted to go to quickly is so that's the first thing, Jewish values kids. The second is I was amazed in your conversation with prime minister who I've, thank god, known for 34 years at Oxford.
He used to come to speak to my students all the time. You have a right back. To kind of take credit for whatever might happen between Israel and Saudi Arabia because the reason why MBS is probably thinking that he has to really get, back. And all the Gulf States, so the ABRAM Accords moving away from a petrodollar economy is because of Tesla. Killing gas Ass driven gas powered vehicles is where the Gulf States started to think, oh my god.
This is not gonna last forever. Rob. And more than any yeah. And more than any other consideration, I think, MBS and and and, the sheikhs of Abu Dhabi and and Dubai Rob. And and Bahrain and, of course, Morocco.
And Morocco doesn't have the same kind of oil, but they're all thinking that electric cars are the future and that's the biggest consumer of these fossil fuels. So just talk to me about that for a moment. Did you did you think to yourself as you develop I I know that you speak about sustainable energy, but did you also think to yourself as you built Tesla at And as you did you think that there might not have been a 911? Back then, Saudi Arabia was spreading Wahhabism all over the world that all because of Petro Doles. Did you think to yourself this might bring peace in the Middle East?
Speaker 1: It's funny to mention that. I wouldn't say it was like I did Rob. Actually, I well, let's put this way. I was well aware that it would change the geopolitical power balance so that Rob. Countries that had like a lot of oil obviously would not be as powerful in the future as in the past if we have a sustainable driver.
Energy economy that is using electric vehicles. And so, you know, that that that's I mean, that's that's rather obvious is that if you I. If you change to a sustainable energy economy, then oil becomes less important. Now I don't think oil becomes there's always going to be some role for oil. It's just not going to be the primary means by which we Rob.
Power, transport and electricity opened in terms of oil, gas and coal. So it's not going to fully disappear, but it will shift the power balance Rob. And and that that is that is already happening to some degree and will happen to a greater degree. And, yeah, it it it might have played a role. Al.
I should say also that generally when I have met with world leaders, I have fought as much as my opinion is worth. I've generally encouraged Rob. For them to have peaceful dialogue with other countries, and I've encouraged heads of state to reach out not through their sort of Foreign ministry necessarily or it's often somebody 3 levels down in the foreign ministry but to reach out Rob. Head of State to Head of State directly and perhaps some of that has been helpful. I hope so.
Speaker 5: Well, Well, I've I I truly believe the rise of electric cars, which is synonymous with you, is the principal reason why the bill states
Speaker 6: Okay. We will now move to the next Rabbi. We will now move to the next speaker, to Nathan Sharansky, the Chair of the Aker of the combating antisemitism. We will now move to Nathan Sharansky. Nathan Sharansky, please.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Ravi. Welcome, everybody, and Elon, of course, for this. Look, guys, as some of you know, I was born and lived and fought in the Soviet Union, where it was clear that there is no freedom of speech and no other antisemitism Rabbi.
And it goes well together. Soviet dictatorship would not permit any freedom of speech. It will do everything that there will be Rabbi. No Jewish or any other identity. Their religion was opium for the people.
And it was clear that anti Semitism is Rabbi. Needed for the dictator to control its own people, so they need external and internal enemy. And so Jews are very good internal and external enemy. So for me, antisemitism was natural part of the dictatorship, but then when I moved into the free world, went out of prison, Rob. I was surprised to find out that antisemitism on the left and the right can be the part of the free world, Rabbi.
The world was a free speech. And of course, the big shock was when 20 years ago, the so called Durbin conference, the first Rabbi. Conference Against Racism became the conference of agreeing that there is 1 regime of apartheid and there is Rabbi. One regime of racism, that's Israel. And there they had a big problem in arguing with leaders of the free world Rabbi.
And then they were not agreeing. I proposed my so called three d principle, Rabbi. The monetization of Israel, delegitimization of Israel, double standard of Israel is like demonetization of Jews and the double standard and the legitimization. They are all tools of anti Semitism and modern tools of anti Semitism. As the result, Rabbi.
The international definition of antisemitism, in fact, recognizes this deep connection between antisemitism, Rabbi. Old and new, demonization of Jews and the state of Israel. So anti Semitism's Day of the left is mainly concentrated on anti Zionism Rabbi And demonization of Israel. Anti Semitism is the right is mainly concentrated on, on the demonization, classical demonization Rabbi. Oh, Jews.
It is very important to fight these both hatreds simultaneously. In fact, what KEM is doing, go from one state to the other, from one mayor to the other, from one university to the other, recognize this international definition of deep connection between anti Zionism Rabbi and anti Semitism. And I have to say that it's very difficult for all the organizations to fight simultaneously in France, but but it's very important. And now coming to social media, we had a dialogue with Facebook. How it is important that Facebook will prevent the Rabbi.
The dissemination of modern antisemitism and anti Zionist. And they, well, I remember Rafael Sundbergen. What they really agreed that denial of Holocaust is recognized as anti Semitism and should be removed from Facebook. But it's very good, but it's very, very narrow part of the modern antisemitism. But when it comes to recognizing, Ravi.
Let's talk to following international definition, the latest damages delegitimization of Israel. Let's say Rabbi. The statement like that Israel today does to Palestinians what does it need to Jews, it becomes very, very So what my question to Elon is, I'm not a specialist, but can we, between these right back. Two extremes looking for the algorithms or looking for the removing of the persons for speaking anti Semitism. Can't we do something like Rob.
Algorithms with communal notice, I think it's called when somebody says something like this on Internet that Rabbi. Israel today is not yesterday. There will be notes that take into account this statement and the international definition is anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: Rob. Yes, I believe that's what we currently regard. There's quite a long list. I'm not Ashlag The exact number of terms, but it's a very long list of terms that are, you know, I think, unequivocally anti Semitic. And and those those terms are, Rabbi.
It could cause the algorithm to basically not promote posts that have those terms. Rabbi. One can sort of get into some very fine grained debates like, well, is this term, Rob. So it's not like there's a, you know, there's a bit of a there's some things for sure are sort of more black and white, some which are a gray area. Ravi.
I think the general bias thus far has been even if it's in the gray area, then it it has diminished. That's the current situation. So but but like to, I think there is some value to not being draconian, meaning that if someone just sort of expressed views that one Rabbi. It could be considered Andy Smitik that there's on our platform publicly that there's been an opportunity for people to convince that person to change their mind Rabbi. Or present facts that are they were perhaps not aware of or but absurdities that they currently believe.
Speaker 3: From my experience as I was asking my students, Rabbi. Try to you have some criticism of Israel at some point. Try to say it without demonizing and delegitimizing Israel. Rabay. You know, they always succeed if you make an effort.
You can do it. But people are not making such an effort because Rabbi. The society doesn't view it as their criticism of Israel as something so legitimate. That even if you Rabbi. Denies the right of Israel to exist.
It's not an antisemitism. So can we bring into our education, into our culture Rabbi. That yes, denial of the existence of the whole state or demonizing the state and turning into something close to Satan, It is antisemitism because many people are not ready to call themselves antisemites, but are very happy to call themselves antisemites in the most extreme way.
Speaker 1: Rob. Yeah. I mean, I I'm to be clear, very much. I'm pro the Israeli state. You know, Rob.
It's, you know, this and this notion that Israel should not exist is just obviously absurd and outrageous and Rabbi. Certainly one of the most anti Semitic things that could possibly be said in my opinion.
Speaker 3: Iran, you're absolutely right, but Not only there is a state Iran which speaks about the world without Israel, but there is a huge Internet recognition of Rob. This position, you can see it on the universities, you can see it among the provinces. You're right. Exactly. So I don't have a freedom of speech, but Rabbi.
Speaker 1: No. I well, the the the crazy thing that I'm finding that that I'm seeing is that is how strong on the far left Rabbi is the anti Semitism movement or the especially especially the anti Israel movement. It's it's actually very strong on on on the fallout including at the top universities in America. And I've heard this out from many people. It's quite, but, among the tenants of the far left is Rabbi.
And it is an anti Israel tenet among macho la fallout. They they just they they view Israel as an apartheid state Rev. That should not exist. And and Yeah. And that is a that's a serious concern.
You know, it's it's, you know, I I was talking to someone who's not a friend, but, you know, it was was telling me that he was in he was in high school in New York, actually, at a prominent high school. And just and and he was Rabbi saying that the State of Israel shouldn't exist and that and that the the the the Mossad is the was was the one that blew up the trade towers. And I'm like, what Atkins. What do you this is insane, and he's clearly getting it from elite high schools and I think same is true in elite colleges in the U. S.
Rabbi.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Lan. One note and I finish because I know there are some other people who want to talk to you. One note that today's anti On the left reminds exactly the Soviet Union's propaganda against Israel. And Rob. Is there something to think about how this Neo Marxism is coming back to American universities?
No.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's a really it's a major concern. Like, I'm I'm very worried about, you know, America here where, In fact, it's it's not it's it's not it's in addition to anti Semitism, that that they're they're getting anti America. Rabbi. Just just the the kids are being taught in in elite high schools and colleges to hate America and hate many Rabbi. And and question the right of Israel to exist.
And and I'm like, what the what on earth is going on? This is we something's we we need to fix our education system because They're being indoctrinated with this madness. So, you know, and and with or without any historical context as well. So, you know, Rob. The people being taught like, oh, Christopher Columbus was just basically pure evil.
And I said, well, you know, America wouldn't exist without him and you have to evaluate Rev. People's actions by the morality at the time, not impose our current morality on something someone did 500 years ago because I imagine Rob. You know, 5 years from now, they might regard us all as sort of savages basically. So, you know, you have to and if If you have a major historical figure like Columbus, you have you have to look at all the things he did and and some of them are bad and and but but frankly, America wouldn't exist Rob. That's why we have a day dedicated to him.
So but they're being taught that that basically America is bad. Like, you know, You know, the land was taken from from the Americans, and and, in effect, they're saying America doesn't have a right to exist, and this is crazy. Rob. So and I'm I'm trying to figure out how to to fix this because something needs to be done here. Our kids and Rabbi.
And many parents are blissfully unaware of this, by the way. They don't know that the amount of propaganda their kids are receiving. So yes.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Rabbi.
Speaker 6: We will now move to professor Alan Dershowitz. Professor Dershowitz, please.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you so much. I have been studying the issue of free speech for Atkins. 70 years, and let me start with a statement that many will disagree with. No country in history has ever really Rob. Tested free speech has ever seen whether the marketplace of ideas works, whether we can really have Rob.
A society without censorship, a society where every idea is tested on their Rabbi. This cannot be a right left issue. I was the chairman of the Anti Defamation League Civil Rights Commission, Rob. Was active in the ADL, no longer am. But the issue has to be one of Rabbi.
Trying trying to live with complete and total free speech, which is why I'm still a fan of x and of you, Rob. By the way, my son's name is Elon too, because you are the 1st person who has really tried. Thomas Jefferson didn't try. Rabbi. Alexander Hamilton didn't try.
Abraham Lincoln didn't try. They all compromised. You are trying, for the first time, an experiment, a great experiment, Rob. To see whether we can survive with the marketplace of ideas and without censorship. And I wanna state very unequivocally, at We should not be drawing lines.
That's a mistake to draw a line. That's an image that I want you to reject. Drawing instead a circle. I call it the circle of ISM equity, and that is Rabbi create a situation where all thoughts and all ideas are created equal, that we don't make judgments on Rabbi. Cases of whether something is anti Semitic or pro Semitic, pro Jewish, anti Jewish, pro Christian, anti Jew pro right, anti right, Atkins.
We create a circle, a symmetrical circle, in which things are outside the circle, things that are illegal, you know, Rebah. Abusing children and that kind of thing. But anything else has to be within a circle. So if it's permitted for one ism, it has to be permitted for the others. That's exactly what universities are failing to do.
They're creating a line on which favorite groups fall on one side And this favorite group's fall on the other side. And Elon, this is an incredible challenge to you. You create a circle of ism equity. Can You create a situation, and I offer to help out to help you do this, to sit and figure out Rabbi. What are the parameters for what kind of speech can be censored, what kind of speech must be permitted Without focusing on the content of the speech itself, without focusing on whether it's right, left, or anything of that kind, It has to be something that's absolutely neutral.
And then I think you'll find very few people who wanna censor because they'll realize that Rabbi. They can't have free speech for me, but not for me. That's out of the question. Every time they try to censor their enemy, Rabbi. They will be censoring themselves if we have a circle of civility rather than lines which are easily manipulable, And no idea should be censored.
Oliver Wendell Holmes put it very well when he said, every idea is an incitement. We can't draw lines between advocacy Seitman. We failed every time we've tried to do that. And so my suggestion to you is don't listen to the critics. Don't Rabbi.
Don't listen to any of the people, even many of who are speaking today, who wanna draw lines that is self serving, that serve the Jewish community, that serve Israel. I don't wanna draw those kinds of lines. I'm in favor of no prior censorship except things that are overtly Rabbi. Illegal. Let the marketplace decide and make sure that there is an opportunity for Rabbi.
Everybody to answer whenever there's any argument or any idea that is deemed to be hate speech. You can't draw a line on hate speech. Rabbi. One person's hate speech is another person's love speech. You have, I think, the right idea to open up the marketplace of ideas, but I think you need some assistance, and I'm happy to provide it with my 70 years of experience as to help create that circle of Rob.
Civility, that circle of ism equity, because it will be self enforcing. Nobody's gonna censor the enemy Rob. When they know that they're going to be censoring themselves as well. So that's my contribution.
Speaker 1: Yes. And as you say like, we are Ravi. Experimenting with this idea of freedom of speech but not reach, meaning you could you can you can post anything on the platform even if it is hateful Rob. Provided it is it is lawful. But but there's a separate question then, is that promoted or not promoted?
You know, does that enter our recommendation engine? If so, what promise and and, you know, our our current approach is to to say, okay. Well, we're not going to if something Rob. You can say things that are hateful but legal on the platform, but we are not going to recommend that to others. That's the current approach that we have.
Rob.
Speaker 2: I mean, you can see how that can be abused and become a form of censorship too.
Speaker 1: I agree. Axel. Advertisers certainly have a right to say what content they'll appear next to because that's their right too, but not to dictate the Rob. What can be said on the platform?
Speaker 2: I agree with that. I think there's one other danger and the danger is reflected by the people who have been selected to join this conversation. Rob. I think there's a danger of this being perceived as a right wing reaction to left wing censorship. I myself am somebody who's a liberal.
I identify more with the left than the right, but I oppose strongly Rob. Efforts by the left as well as by the right to censor. But it would be a very serious mistake if x was perceived or you were perceived
Speaker 1: Rabbi Yeah.
Speaker 2: Some way, implicitly favoring the right over the left. That's why you have for example, I would suggest that You have a small group of people, again, I would volunteer to be one of them if you would want me, who represent different perspectives. I would represent To make sure that you don't drift over to the right. Today, the greatest danger to Rabbi. Free speech comes from the left.
Let's be clear about that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I agree.
Speaker 2: Violence comes from the right, the the shoot synagogues. The left is educating our future leaders. I know. I taught at Harvard for 50 years. I know who our students are.
They are the former president the future presidents of the United States. Rabbi. So the left poses a far greater danger of, censoring free speech and of skewing the marketplace of ideas. But I think x has to be perceived and in reality as perfectly symmetrical. Rob.
Speaker 1: That's our aspiration. That's our goal. That is our goal now. The reality of it for anyone who's paying attention and I'm sure you saw this was that I. Prior to the acquisition, Twitter was very left and getting even more left.
So they had a massive thumb on the scale on elections frankly worldwide Rev. On the side of left and would suppress, you know, Republican voices at a rate, I don't know, sometimes perhaps an order of magnitude greater than Reva. So there was a tremendous amount of bias. Now in moving and then coming from a system where it's like, okay, Rabbi. There's a massive luxury bias is that we to a system that is more inclusive and that that could Rob.
We're we're at least say 80% of of America, perhaps the world, could be on the platform and feel that that it's a level playing field Rob. And it's fair to people with a wide range of views. That's what we're that's our goal, and that's what we're doing. Now given that it's sorted so far off the left, Rabbi. It is accurate to say it's moving right because it's moving to the center.
So it's technically true that it's moving right, not that it is suddenly Rob. Popped over and instantaneously come from a left wing propaganda on to a right wing propaganda on. But it is Rabbi. But necessarily, if it was pretty damn far on the left, it's going to have to move to the right in order to get to the center, and that is our goal.
Speaker 2: With all due respect, I disagree with that.
Speaker 3: I think you move to
Speaker 2: the right in order to overcome the left. You move to the center directly, Rabbi. And you create
Speaker 1: We are moving to the center directly. I'm just saying, you know, as Einstein would say, all motion is relative. If you start on the left And you move to the center, you're necessarily moving right. That's what was what I'm saying. But I thought it was not to to move to the right.
It is that we are moving right in order to get to the center. That's, at
Speaker 2: Well, I would put it different. Yeah. I would say you're moving to the center without regard to you're moving away from the left at To the center.
Speaker 1: Correct. Which is which is by the left as moving rights. Right.
Speaker 2: But if you look at the people who are on this call, if you look at the cochairman of all this, I think it is Rob. Fair for some people to perceive this as a movement to you don't wanna be perceived that way. Rabbi. You have to, in some ways, I don't want to say lean over backwards, but you have to make it absolutely clear that you are the only platform in the world That doesn't take a left right position, a pro Jewish and anti Jewish, a pro Christian, a pro American, that you are a platform that is Rabbi. Pro free speech.
You're the 1st people in history ever to try to create a true marketplace of ideas. John Stuart Mill Rabbi advocated it. Jefferson advocated it. Nobody has ever achieved it. You're in a position where you can achieve it, but don't Rabbi.
Don't destroy it by being perceived as a right wing reaction to left wing excesses. You must be perceived as Rabbi. Being from the center and everything you do is designed to create a neutral space, Rabbi. A marketplace of ideas where the only answer to false speeches is true speech and where the at Marketplace determines, how much the speech is spread out, how many people listen to it. Yeah.
We have to have more confidence Rabbi. In our ability to answer bad speech. I accept that challenge in my life, Rabbi. And I don't want to sense in my enemies.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely. To be clear, we actually, have massively broadened what can be said on the platform host. But we have and perhaps you disagree with this, but we have tried to guide our algorithm to promote things that are positive Rob. I realize that's perhaps this is not in In terms of what can be said, but in terms of what is promoted to others. And if somebody wants to say like, Rob.
Accused me of saying, well, it's wrong to have a slight, maybe a bias towards love and positivity Rabbi that I'm rightly
Speaker 2: accused of that. Look. I agree. This is a long conversation. I'd love to continue it with you offline because I think
Speaker 1: Ives. Well, thank you. I think we are almost Rabbi. Our overlap in agreement is very high. So I would sort of value European in the future because this is something that we should debate frequently.
Rabbi. And and like I said, I I think the the overarching goal is how do how do we make this platform serve as a a positive force for humanity. And Ives. And I think the free exchange of ideas is does result in positive force for humanity. And if somebody feels like their ideas are You're not there wrong that they're not being sort of squashed and censored.
Then I think because I think being squashed and censored I. Hate hatred and resentment. And and simply also then sends people to perhaps, you know, hate echo chambers that are outside of the mainstream. I think where you get some of those sort of 4chan based, you know, people go kill a mass shooting Rob. Because they're they're in some sort of hate echo chamber.
Speaker 2: I agree, and I think you're the only one out there who can do that now. And I think we all should be Rabbi. Sacrifice our own interests even on issues like antisemitism to a far greater humanitarian interest Rob. In promoting open and complete dialogue, complete free speech in the marketplace of ideas. Only you can do that.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you. I was I'll do my best here, Rob. And your sort of advice would be silly and better for the others in the call would be much, very much appreciated. Rabbi. I believe one is always wrong to some degree, and we simply aspire to be a little less wrong over time.
And eventually, we can You know, that could get to a really good place. So but yeah. That like like I said, the the idea is is like, well, how do we make this a positive force for for humanity where we Rob. Increase, you know, the sum of human knowledge. We it's it's a place where people, you know, if their ideas are at based on false premises, especially, you know, hateful ideas that we can have to point out that that the reason that they have the the this hatred is because of things that aren't true.
You know, Okay. So thank you. It's like actually you're hating this or that group for things that are that are not true or perhaps in some case Things that happened a long time ago for which people are no longer you know, it's like the the it was their great great grandfather or something, you know, Rabbi the bad thing. So that's why I said like I think there's a lot of wisdom in forgiveness and turn the other cheek. And when I When I was younger, right, I actually thought, well, turn the other cheek.
Isn't that a sign of weakness? But I think it is actually a sign of strength. No. No. Now if it's about the same token, if you turn the other cheek, you're just getting slapped all day.
Rabbi. At a certain point, you stopped stopped doing the deed. But but but the the general notion of forgiveness is incredibly Rabbi. Don't hold some grudge for, you know, a long time. In some cases, centuries.
It's it's like let's let's let's let's let it go. And, Rabbi. To make another take a quote from the New Testament, the truth shall set you free as John said. The truth shall set you free. Ravi.
I'm a big believer in that the the road to moral is, in my view, truth and curiosity. Okay. Rabbi. And if you care about the truth and you're curious, I think a natural outpouring from that is
Speaker 6: Okay. Rabbi. Okay. We're now moving to the next guest, Rubaim Menachem, our Golden Chairman of the European Jewish Association. Please.
Speaker 8: Yes. Good afternoon. I have the privilege to be the Chairman of European Jewish Organization, which is one of the leading organization in Europe, combining other Semitism and fostering genes like, representing hundreds of strategic communities from across the continent. First of all, mister Mask, I really would like to thank you very much for the time you spend on this topic. I must say I feel comfortable saying that I have no doubt that you are against hate speech and anti Semitism on X.
Rob. Actually, just having this conversation is important because it shows your commitment to the issue. Having said that Rabbi. And before the questions I have for you, I have a request for you. And I would say on behalf of the Jews of Europe, on January 22, in honor of the International Holocaust Rabbi.
On Remembrance Day, we are taking hundreds of European political leaders, Jewish leaders and Holocaust survivors to the Auschwitz concentration camps. And I would like to ask you to join us for this visit, to walk the door, to feel it, to understand it because I think that this will be an important experience Rabbi. After which you will be able to feel for yourself the great sensitivity of the Jewish community to the issue of anti Semitism and where it can ultimately lead to. What do you think about this idea before I go to my questions?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, first of all, I'm an avid student of history. So I I'm very well aware of of the, you know, the Holocaust and, Rabbi. You know, the sort of ask which is, and and whatnot. And and it's, you know, the the all the things that happened that were that were terrible.
So This is not, it's still not new information for me. So I mean, basically, I don't need to visit Altschwager to understand. I get it. Raback.
Speaker 8: Well, not to understand, but to feel. It's quite different, I would say. I would I would appreciate if you could have it in mind and consider it. I I really believe that to make Ravi, something that you did not feel before, but just please have it in mind. But back actually to the main topic.
Speaker 1: Rob. I I I I would say that I do feel it to be clear. Like you said, you know, I've seen and I've seen the pictures. You see the pictures of the baby shoes, you know, that kind of thing, and it's like Rabbi. Unbelievable.
I mean, so it's one of the problems with profound sadness Rabbi.
Speaker 8: Unfortunately, things that are clear Rob. And therefore, again, I would say you visit our institute to be a very strong statement, not only for personal commitment, but Rob. We all understand the will be once you are there. So I would appreciate if you could have it in mind because I really believe Ravi. That your visit to us with with all the attention that will be, which will come with it, we really could contribute a lot to, to the holocaust awareness and the struggle to combat anti Semitism.
But may that I
Speaker 1: will I will seriously consider it. I just wanted to say that, you know, I I I you know, I I'm I'm very knowledgeable and and it's about the subject, and and I've seen many pictures. So it's not like I'm ignorant in any I think in any way here. Ravi. But it could be helpful perhaps to, as an example, to others.
Speaker 8: My question. The next key main topic. I think that we can all agree that the Rob. The question here is not really about the importance of the type of consumer sentiment versus the importance of maintaining freedom of speech, Ravi. But on making sure that there's no spread of opportunities whilst maintaining the right to freedom of speech.
Ravi. I'm the human and civil rights organizations from all around the world. I sent you a letter asking your platform to adopt the iRO definition of Rob. By thousands of governments and public bodies around the world. As far as I know, they have not received an answer so far.
And my question is, Ravi. Will you be willing to talk about the outlook definition on your platform?
Speaker 1: Well, I wasn't aware of this that this has been sent to us, Rabbi. But I'm happy to take a look at it, and I suspect it's probably sensible that it may already be what we're doing. So I Rob. I apologize for not responding. I wasn't aware that we received such a thing.
So I think it's you just basically Rabbi. Reply to my text or something with that with a link to that, or reply to my post on on Yext platform, I should say, Rabai, with a link to that and or share it otherwise, and I'm happy to take a look at it.
Speaker 8: Yes, I'll be more than happy to do so because actually Ravi. Having algorithms according to anti Semitism is great, but very important is to know what is anti Semitism and what should be monitored and perhaps Rabbi. You know what, as we said a minute ago, I do not think you are on the semi.
Speaker 1: It's the stupidest thing ever. I mean, honestly, I was like, Rabbi. This is like the most absurd thing I could have possibly imagined, practically.
Speaker 8: I will call back, Mr. Markel. Rob. You own and manage a platform which, unfortunately, many other semites use to generate Ravi. And daily, there is more and more.
So the question is, how could you bring this gap? I mean, how could act Rabbi. I better reflect your own values toward the Jewish people.
Speaker 1: Well, I I think as it was articulated earlier, I I think might be able to do much That of the Jewish people who met passed on everyone, but but I think most. You know you know, just knowledge, reading, understanding, debating, these are all Jewish values, and I very much agree with those. So the Jewish people are learned people, people that are people of not of 1 of 1 book, not of many books, Rob. I greatly admire that. So as a rather bookish person myself, so
Speaker 8: Yes. But, Elon, thousands of students and youngest Rafael. From Europe, report to us on the demonization, the experience on social network where they identify themselves as Jewish, all support of Israel. Raveh. And that's not only just on social media, but it's also actually after they're translating to actual physical harm.
What Akash. Can be gone about it. I'm just distracted.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, like I said, if our system is not working in some way, we're still unhappy to Rob. But I think it's what and perfection is not a reasonable expectation to be clear Rob. We've got 500,000,000 interactions per day on the system. So if one cherry picks here, one can The 500,000,000 worst thing that was said and it's statistically speaking, it's going to be pretty bad.
But that doesn't that is not in no way reflective of the Vast amount of communication that is occurring. So, you know, I think we're doing a pretty good job and we care about doing a better job over time. As As I said, the operating principle is so the greater good of humanity and that, you know, if people look back 10 years, 20 years or even longer, look back on Rob. The actions that we're taking here with the X platform that they that the general conclusion is it was it was, you know, a net force for good for right back to the UN. So that's my goal.
And here, and I think we're making progress in that direction. Yes, so yes. Rabbi.
Speaker 6: Okay. We'll now move to Michal Khotsur.
Speaker 1: We're also open to criticism and I value critical feedback Because critical feedback allows one to be less wrong. And, you know, so I I I always worry and and sometimes reflect. Am I losing my feedback loop? Rabbi. And my team to code Scarface is getting high in my own supply because that's that's a danger that one faces.
Now I actually find that the X platform is is helpful Rev. As a source of criticism of myself. So there's lots of people who do not like me actually on the X platform and make that clear Rob. And that if I say something, they will either trash me or contradict me or in some cases, I might actually say something that I thought was true, but then Turns out I was inaccurate what if it was inaccurate and I get community noted which isn't by the way, I think community notes is very powerful for adding context Rabbi And and and combating actually combating disinformation. I pay very close attention to the notes, the ones that receive prominence, Rabbi.
And and I have to say it's it's really working quite well. Just so that everyone on the call understands, broadly speaking, how the way the community notes Rob works is that, people who historically have had different views, based on how they've reviewed other notes must agree Rabbi. On a note in order for it to be surfaced, this is actually very, very helpful and very difficult to gain. And the there's actually a white paper on I. Community notes that's, I think, very interesting to read.
All the community notes software is fully open source. All of the ratings are fully open source. Meaning you can, Rabbi. Based on the code and the data, you can actually recreate why a node surfaced or didn't surface. Rabbi.
Transparency, I think, is a key to trust. So, you know, if somebody says sort of Rob. Potentially, you know, some kind of holocaust denial thing, then they will get community noted. And this applies, by the way, to Rob. To heads of state, it applies to me.
It applies to our biggest advertisers. We've actually lost some advertising money because in in a few cases, advertisers made claims that were not I'm not entirely accurate and got community noted.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 1: But the point is that community notes Applies to everyone even if you're head of state or or, you know, the principal owner of the of the platform. I think I I'm I I think it's it's a very powerful Rob. So overall, I think things are actually look pretty good, but I'm not saying they're perfect, and we want to work to make them better.
Speaker 6: Okay. We will now move to Michal Kotarwansh, Israel's Special Envoy for Combating Antisemitism. Michal, please. Okay. For some reason You
Speaker 1: know what? With respect to Rob. The visit to the concentration camp. I'll say I'll give it a tentative yes because I actually do need to travel to as it is, I need to visit out our the right back. Factory because that team there has been doing amazing work, and it's just probably time for me to visit there anyway.
And
Speaker 6: Rabbi. Okay. We will now move then to Rabbi Cooper. Rabbi Cooper, please.
Speaker 9: Yes. Rabbi. Thank you for having me on, and it's been probably the longest anyone has been able to mute this rabbi. So it's a very humbling experience. Thank you for that, Elon.
Also, I resent you now the letter asking for you to consider the IRA definition. I was one of Rob. The lead signatories, I think there are 110 Jewish groups around the world that sent it. So if you can take a look, I don't have to go I Over the territory, Ken, but it is an important decision to make to giving a working definition.
Speaker 1: Simon Wiesenthal. Okay, I'll definitely take a look at it. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Appreciate that. With Simon Wiesenthal for 29 years. And in 1980, Rob. He was asked, at a Midwest University, could it hap could the Holocaust happen again? This was his answer.
This was a man who lost 89 members of his family in the Nazi Holocaust, barely survived himself, and became the famous Nazi hunter seeking justice.
Speaker 6: Rabbi. I think we lost Rabbi Cooper for some technical reason.
Speaker 7: Can you hear me now?
Speaker 6: Now we can hear you. Yes, please.
Speaker 9: All right. I know exactly. But Rob. I've worked with I've worked with mister the late mister Simon Wiesenthal for 29 years. He's our namesake, And he was asked in 1980 at a university, could it happen again?
Could the Holocaust happen again? His answer was, Rabbi. If you have organized hate, a crisis in society plus technology, anything is possible. Rabbi. And when he was referring technology, he's referring to the technology that the Nazis had, radio, newsreels.
Today, we wouldn't even consider it on the technological Rob Abdul Blip. But he said had that technology been around in 14/92, no Jew would have survived in Spain, Rob. No Catholic would have survived in England, and no Protestant would have survived in France. So I think it's important, at Rob. At least for us is an establishing approach.
Also, since you spoke a great deal about the idea of of change and repentance, if I. If you haven't read it yet, you should probably read his book called The Sunflower. It goes to the heart of the questions that have been raised today. We I wanted to take you Rob. Since I'm the 2nd oldest person, I think, or 3rd on this call, 30 years ago, we established a project here at the Simon Wiesenthal Center called Digital Terrorism and Hate.
Rob. And I actually went to see the 1st founders of Twitter in that building in San Francisco. Rob. And basically, what they told me back then was at the beginning, we just want free speech. We just want the marketplace.
Everybody should be heard. We're totally against Rob. Censorship, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Despite our sending them examples of how Rabbi organized racist, bigots, haters, and terrorists were leveraging their platform. It took Rob.
The United States congressional hearings, I think, Dorothy was the guy at that time. When they told him ISIS, at its power, Rob. Was deploying 200,000 tweets a day, and that was finally what got their attention. And If I may just say because I'm not a technological one guy, I would like to actually send my technology people up to San Francisco to meet with your folks. Rob.
When we talked, someone mentioned asymmetrical, it came out a couple of times. Here's the way we approach it. Rob. I think on the fight or the discussions over free speech and censorship, especially what's happened in the last couple of years with fake news and everything else, Rabbi. We're looking at a different asymmetrical war, which is we can meet any of these hateful ideas in the conspiratorial nut jobs Rob.
In the marketplace of ideas, but what's actually going on is they're leveraging access to the platforms, including yours, Rob. In order to market their ideas, in order to recruit, in order to fundraise, so Rabbi. If we're in a debating society, I'm all with you and with Alan Dershowitz, etcetera. The the what we need to look at together Rob. Based on your algorithms is what tweaks need to take place?
How do we make sure Goyim International does it, which it currently Rabbi. Does use the platform in order to send people to Telegram and then other folks will take Rabbi. It's their hateful material that's thrown on the lawns of millions of Americans across the United States. How How do we make it more difficult? How do we degrade their marketing capabilities?
Not what it is that they have to say. I I think that's a core piece. And one other thing I'd like to bring up is that I also wear Rob. The second half, I've been with the Simon Wiesenthal Center in the last 45 years. I head up our global social action agenda, Rob.
But I'm also now a member and currently the Chairman of the United States Commission on Aptly Mandated Rob. Sort of watchdog group. And last week, I was I hosted in the U. S. Senate hearings of what's just going on in Eastern India Rabbi.
As an example, because we look at 28 countries. And I want to say here from wearing both of my alicos, I salute you I. And seeing that you have a worldview, that you wanna help give voice to the voiceless. And I think this is another area Rob. That we should be talking about, I'll be in touch with you privately, but I'm going to invite you to Rob.
Keynote one of our hearings on technology and what's going on in China and elsewhere in Asia, Vietnam, etcetera, etcetera. Rob. But if you notice the article in the in the Washington Post the other day, how the the folks in India are trying to occasionally shut things off. They Rob. Know that it's being used to to spread riots and all the rest.
But at the end of the day, the most I can't even talk about the the details, but the Rabbi. Horrors of those riots only came to the attention of the world because of social media. So Rob. The idea of also being there, sometimes it can be 3 ZIP codes that may be shut down, Rabbi. But the idea of continuing your leadership, and this is the most important, part, with all due respect, I mean, I like the discussions and debates.
Rab. I don't, Rabonate. Both of the youngsters you had, the first one, Ben, graduated our high school, And I'm a proud product of Yeshiva University. But you're an extremely powerful world player. No, mister Wiesenthal said it.
Everybody says it. Words have consequence. You know, he met and, you know, he married his childhood sweetheart. He was an architect, Rabbi. And this entire world was destroyed because because he was a Jew.
So for us, you I know you know it. You you Rabbi. You are, I think, naturally drawn to the Jewish people, and we deeply appreciate it. And ideas do count, which is important. Rabbi.
We're not talking to The Wizard of Oz. We're talking to a fellow citizen who frankly is more powerful than a lot of heads of state. Rob. So both from the point of view of hopefully adopting the Aira definition, give our technological experts, of which I am not, Rob. A chance to sit down in San Francisco with your people because they have specific things they want to bring up.
Speaker 1: Okay. Sure.
Speaker 9: You should look at our commission Rabbi. As we look at human rights through the lens of religious freedom and when you take a look of how she, Rabbi. What he will do to try to break those people who have faith, defending those faithful is the is the job of religious people, Rabbi. People who aren't or agnostic and people whose religion is not to believe in God. That is the litmus test of our day.
So, Hiper. I hope you'll come down to LA to the Museum of Tolerance. We'd love to take you around. But most importantly, we're in this for the long range And we are inspired and guided, frankly, by the amazing humanity of a man named Simon Weeden.
Speaker 1: And as he is a great man, no question about it. Rabbi. So it's worth noting that part of what really drove, and I'm sure you I'm telling people on this This call already know it, but I think maybe the public doesn't. But the Hitler and Nazis were extremely like sensorious. They say they were, Rabbi.
They've dramatically obviously, they exercise censorship on anything pro Semitic or anything that would counteract The anti Semitic arguments. And they they would even have, you know, SA, you know, Brownchilds shouting down, like, literally literally going to colleges Rabbi. Shouting down anyone who was trying to make an argument in favor of the Jewish people. So it's like the the Nazis love censorship big time. So, Rabbi.
That's an interesting point is we have to give anyway, but like the overarching goal here is create a force for good, not a force for Rabbi. That improves the amount of love in the world, not and diminishes the amount of hate. So improving the net happiness of humanity as a whole. And Rabbi. And like I said, I think we've made some progress and we will continue to make progress and continue to solicit negative feedback, Ives.
Critical feedback that can allow the system to be a better force for the company. And we're just doing so, obviously, just need to be careful that we do not Thank you
Speaker 4: so much, everybody. That was phenomenal.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to say that Rob. While the road to hell frankly is obviously paved mostly with bad intentions, once in a while, there's a good intention paving stone and And we just need to make sure that that we don't you know, in in sort of speaking to promote, you know, love and understanding Rob. That's that that that in the process, if we if we are too just to if there's too much censorship inadvertently creating a back backlash that increases the amount of page. So and and I'm with you. We wanna keep this dialogue going, and we wanna also keep keep having critical feedback and and and keep keep looking at ways to to better.
Rabbi. And I think just having this dialogue is good. So and for those that harbor hatred for any group whether it's Jewish people or some other group, Rob. I think we can promote understanding and promote forgiveness and promote and and and and help them understand that actually some of the things they believe that are causing them to Rabbi. To hate another group, our perhaps faults.
That's really what we should be aiming for.
Speaker 4: Thank you guys so much for joining us. This was fantastic. Thank you so much to my cohost, Elon, to my cohost, Ben. Thank you so much to all the guests who joined and thank you most of all to Elon. Thank you so much for having us on this platform for engaging this discussion.
Speaker 1: Thank you, everyone, for your great feedback, and It's an honor to speak with everyone and a very intelligent group. So thank you. Thank you for setting up.
reSee.it AI Summary
A user suggests that Twitter's ability to discuss taboo subjects could make it the world's largest media company. Elon Musk responds with a bullseye emoji.
@farzyness - Farzad Mesbahi
Twitter’s secret weapon is the normalization of discourse around taboo subjects. People have been craving this for a long time. If Twitter can build on this it’ll be the largest media company in the world, and it won’t be close.
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
@farzyness 🎯