E108: Doxing debate, Nuclear fusion breakthrough, state of the markets & more

**Jason Calacanis** (0:00)
Captain Calacanis is here, reporting for duty.

**David Sacks** (0:03)
Wait, is that a Spirit Airlines cap?

**Jason Calacanis** (0:05)
Absolutely. Spirit Airlines, I just wanted to say, All-In Podcast, now sponsored by Montclair and Spirit Airlines.

**Chamath Palihapitiya** (0:12)
Or now sponsored by the Village People.

**David Sacks** (0:18)
Now, are you a pilot or a flight attendant, J Cal?

**Chamath Palihapitiya** (0:21)
He's a flight attendant.

**David Sacks** (0:22)
I don't think he's thin enough to be a flight attendant.

**Jason Calacanis** (0:24)
Are you fat shaming me? Are you body shaming me?

**David Friedberg** (0:26)
You can't do that nowadays, that'll get you canceled.

**Jason Calacanis** (0:29)
Getting Sacks canceled at this point, like fat shaming would be number 72 on the list.

**Chamath Palihapitiya** (0:33)
He can't get canceled because all the libs have left Twitter. There's nobody to...

**Jason Calacanis** (0:37)
There's no hall monitors left?

**David Sacks** (0:40)
They all pretend.

**Jason Calacanis** (0:41)
No, they quit every week.

**David Sacks** (0:42)
Yeah, it's like all the libs you said they moved to Canada when Trump got elected.

**Jason Calacanis** (0:45)
Yeah, Canada immigration.
A hacker figured out a way to take all this data, and track people's yachts, people's planes. Obviously, one of those people was Elon. Elon had a security issue. This is all public information. So the larger issue at stake here is the fact that the law allows for people to do this persistent tracking of planes, which then becomes persistent tracking of a person. And what really is at stake here is how we define the term doxing. For people who don't know the term doxing, it means giving a person's location. That could be your home. That could also be you're at a location for some period of time. You're at a hotel, you know, for a basketball game.
And it's pretty clear. You can take a picture of a celebrity and say, there's a celebrity here, Lady Gaga is at the farmers market. What I object to here, we all understand doxing is dangerous. And it, in fact, is against the law to just give people addresses and stuff like that.
The issue here is a new type of doxing, which I'll call, you know, persistent coordinated doxing, where dozens of times a month, you're giving a person's location.
It may not be against the First Amendment, Sacks, I think you would agree. But we have to ask ourselves, do we want to live in a world where whether a person's on an electric bicycle or an airplane or any device in between, somebody should be releasing dozens of times a month, a specific dedicated feed of their location. It is terrorizing as a parent, when this happens. I've had doxing people on the call here have had various security concerns. We don't want to live in a world with de facto doxing. What these sites were doing was de facto doxing.

**David Friedberg** (2:43)
I think it was a bad decision. And I think that it represented on the least generous statement would be that it represents deep hypocrisy in that not just a few weeks ago, did he say he would never delete that account.
But he also said he was buying Twitter to enable freedom of speech and freedom of expression and that he wouldn't come in and do the same sort of content moderation that was done by the old regime. And then he came in and did exactly what the old regime did, which is that he took the rules and he took the moderation policies and he found a way to use them to make some editorialized decisions that he thought was appropriate. Now, the more generous thing is what you guys are saying, which I don't think is necessarily wrong, which is that he's trying to protect people where there's some loophole or some law that doesn't seem right morally, but it is the law and it is what it is.
In those cases, I think you run into the exact same issue that the old guard at Twitter had, that the moderators and the executives at YouTube have dealt with and that the executives at Google have dealt with and that we sit here and we criticize until you're on that side of the table and you're forced to make these moderation decisions, you're forced to make these policy decisions and you're forced to implement these policy decisions because of some moral framework that you now think is appropriate. And guess what? Some people will say, that's not freedom of expression. That's not freedom of speech. You're taking that away from some people. You're taking this particular case away from a 15 or 16 year old kid who's built a Twitter feed. And so I think what it shows is just how hard it is to moderate these sites, these platforms, and that there is no simple, easy, idealistic ideologue of, hey, all these things are open. All these things can be used by anyone all the time because as soon as one of these edge cases start to happen, you want to come in and do something about it.