← All-In

Zuck's Senate apology, Elon's comp package voided, crony capitalism, Reddit IPO, drone attack

Episode 1642024-02-02EnglishMembers only
Listen to this episode00:00 / 1:33:50
Reading settings
Reading preferences
Text size
Download in-depth read
Read offline

English · In-depth read · Current version

Downloads are not available yet.

Text language

In-depth read · Key ideas, reasoning, and examples, organized by topic.

§01Vision Pro banter and the try-it-then-drawer problem

Jason opens from Miami without Friedberg, joking that he is lost inside his Apple Vision Pro. The hosts play recordings of each other in their goggles. A side story follows about Uber's IPO bell ringing, where one host says Travis Kalanick (TK) was on the floor but not allowed to ring the bell because he was controversial. Another host reflects that most careers contain only one to three big pops, so every day is worth enjoying.

On the product, one host says several friends bought the device in the first days, which he calls civilians ordering without waiting in line. He adds that Silicon Valley is blasé after years with Oculus, though overlaid sports stats look compelling, and that wearers can still see their messy rooms through the goggles. Another predicts people will try the goggles, be amazed, then drawer them for lack of an application, and that price must fall. Jason calls it a proof of concept, expecting glasses later, and points to Meta's Ray-Ban glasses, which a demo showed answering a question about what matches a gray shirt.

§02Zuckerberg's Senate apology and the moral-panic argument

The hearing on online child sexual exploitation also questioned the CEOs of TikTok, Discord, X and Snap. Jason says Senator Josh Hawley made Zuckerberg turn and apologize to families in the audience. In the clip, Zuckerberg says no one should suffer what the families have and that Meta will keep investing in industry-leading efforts.

This was a kangaroo court.

Sacks calls the hearing bipartisan moral panic and grandstanding, and predicts that repealing Section 230 would bring more censorship. He accepts that harms occur but says Facebook takes substantial measures, and that at gigantic scale edge cases always get through. He asks why the music industry, advertisers, the Kardashians or the show Euphoria are not targeted, and concludes the companies are being scapegoated.

§03Scale, age limits and a narrow Section 230 change

Jason counters that algorithms built to raise engagement make social media different from music. Chamath agrees that the targeting is not new, citing 1990s attacks on gangster rap and a 1980s trial over a band's records played backward. He says social media is an easy target because a few platforms dominate, and credits Zuckerberg with moral clarity for apologizing.

there's this massive law of large numbers in place

Keep reading as a member.

You've read the free preview. Become a member to read the rest, with side-by-side reading and downloads where available.