SPEAKER_00: Okay, happy Friday, everybody. We've got a great show for you today. I'm going to talk to author Max Chafkin about his new book, The Contrarian, Peter Thiel and Silicon Valley's Pursuit of Power. The interview gets a little heated. I challenge him on two very sticky subjects. The first being, he mentions many times in the book, that Peter Thiel has people around him who are white supremacists. Not saying Peter Thiel is a white supremacist, but the people around him are white supremacists. And then the other issue I talk about, well, I'll let you get to that when you hear the interview. But first, I'm going to cover Coinbase's new NFT platform and the blowback they're getting from some recent hacks. And should customers investing in crypto assume some level of risk in their account security? I think so, right? If you're going to be in a situation where nobody's in charge, and it's a distributed system, and it's easily hacked, well, maybe you should expect that you will get hacked. But Coinbase and Robinhood are both investing massively in phone support and customer support, which is a great idea. Okay, let's get to the show.

SPEAKER_03: This Week in Startups is brought to you by LinkedIn Jobs. A business is only as strong as its people, and every hire matters. Post your first job for free at linkedin.com slash twist. Belay. Get back to doing what only you can do, growing your organization and leave the rest to Belay. Learn how by texting TWIST to 55123 or visit belaysolutions.com slash twist for a free ebook called Rise Up and Lead Well by Tricia Ciottino, CEO of Belay. And Zendesk. Qualifying startups can join the Zendesk for startups program and get six free months of Zendesk products. You'll also get access to an exclusive community of startups for advice and connections. Visit zendesk.com slash twist today

SPEAKER_06: to get started. Okay, on Tuesday, Coinbase announced that they will be launching an NFT platform and the

SPEAKER_07: waitlist grew to over 1 million users in just 24 hours. So here's the quote from the Coinbase announcement, just as Coinbase helped millions of people access Bitcoin for the first time in an easy and trusted way. We want to do the same for NFTs. Right now OpenSea is the largest NFT marketplace, if you remember, and according to Dapp Radar, a site that tracks decentralized app data, OpenSea had 261,000 users over the past 30 days. So that seems like a small number in terms of, you know, the overall internet, but I can tell you for an early stage company like an NFT company to have a quarter million people trading on the platform, that would be a huge number. So I don't know if that 261,000 users actually made a trade where they visited the site very hard to tell from what Dapp Radar are saying there. So this is one of the things that's always hard about metrics in our industry, people will say they had users, to me a user means they're logged in. So are these actually logged in users, or when I perused OpenSea, two or three times last month, am I counted? And then were they not just logged in users, but did they actually do a transaction? Because if they're users, that means maybe 10% did a transaction. So it'd be 25,000 people making transactions, and you could actually work and back and forth. Now, for those of you don't know what an NFT is non fungible token, it's an

SPEAKER_00: object, typically like an image or a video, that is a keepsake that could have some other rights associated with it. Sometimes you buy it as a piece of art. Sometimes you buy it to be part of a club and a membership in a club. And maybe that membership will have some downstream effects. Now people are talking about them, not just as baseball cards, or not just as a membership card, like you're in a private club like so house, but maybe it's a has some utility to it, like, it's a sword in a game and you use it in, you know, Diablo, but you can take the same sword and use it in Fortnite. Perfect example. And so there is some concept of these NFTs, these objects, obviously being tradable on the blockchain, being traded peer to peer in an easy fashion, and being one of one, and maybe even having rights to

SPEAKER_07: it. So my understanding is, I think with the board eight group, you get the rights to your monkey, and you can then make art with it or t shirts, I believe that's the case. Either way, this NFT waitlist means Coinbase is like great companies when they add a verticals, one of the great things

SPEAKER_00: about having scale, once you hit scale, you can add another adjacent category, you can be Uber, and you add Uber Eats, or Uber Freight. Now you're hitting the ground running, you've got some amount of users,

SPEAKER_07: technology, team playbook, cash that you can deploy, to make it even faster and easier to do the next vertical Airbnb experiences, eventually, Airbnb, they've talked about having an airline, each of those things becomes easier. When you are Amazon and have books, and then you do DVDs, and then you do home appliances, you get the idea. And so and Robinhood obviously started drinking Coinbase's milkshake and with their 20 million accounts, which obviously I've shares in Robinhood, which if you had dinner with me, you'd know in the first 15 minutes, and those Robin Robinhood added crypto, right? So now all of a sudden, boom, crypto has become a meaningful part of what they're doing. So there's a singularity that's occurring. All of these financial products will have margin loans, 401ks, 529s for college, bank accounts, checking cash payments, it's just going to all be one thing. So Coinbase, Robinhood could eventually be part of Google, Amazon, or Apple, or be the equivalent of those companies. That's my belief. I believe Coinbase and Robinhood are destined to become trillion dollar companies or be

SPEAKER_00: a major piece of a trillion dollar company. How amazing would it be if your Amazon account was connected, or your Apple account was connected to your Coinbase account, and that was, you know, Coinbase was owned by Apple, or Robinhood was owned by Apple, what an amazing future that would be,

SPEAKER_07: right? You're using Apple Pay, plus you've got your 401k, and you're checking in your bank account right here. I mean, that'd be extraordinary. And by the way, you know, the Apple watch I hated for a long time, I got the six, because my Fitbit kept breaking, and I was just tired of dealing with Fitbit customer support. Literally, every time I call Fitbit, they're like, Yeah, you're at a warranty. I'm like, it's 18 months old, this thing is broken, it just turned off. Like, this is the fourth time I've bought 20 Fitbits. And they're like, Yeah, sorry, it's not under warranty. And then I go tweet it. And I mention it, because I don't get the answer. I want customer support. And then immediately seven people DM me, I work at Fitbit, we'll send you a new one. That's just tired of pulling the micro

SPEAKER_18: celebrity card on Twitter. So I just bought an Apple watch. And I miss my Fitbit. I'll be honest,

SPEAKER_07: I liked it better. In many ways. But the one thing I will say is that when you double tap this,

SPEAKER_00: or just press this button, and you can just Apple pay. Oh, my Lord, I'm picking places to go based on Apple because it's so delightful, just go bing, and then get your little alert. I was in Italy, bing, bing, bing, I was just buying it everywhere. I loved it. And that I think is the future. I think we're going to see Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon want to own one of these companies or compete

SPEAKER_07: with them. And you see with Apple Pay, Google Pay. So it's going to be really interesting. In other news, it's Coinbase world, we're just living in it. Come back on the program, Brian, want to talk. In other news, we invited I know you guys keep asking me to have Brian back on. We've invited him 10 times. We've got radio silence right now. So maybe I said something. I don't know. Sometimes

SPEAKER_23: I'm honest, candid. Or maybe he's just tired of the press because the company's doing so well, he's super busy. But I'd love to have you back on Brian and chop it up. In other news,

SPEAKER_00: CNBC reported on Tuesday that Coinbase was facing blowback on its new live customer support phone

SPEAKER_07: service, which they launched this month. Obviously, Robinhood announced they're launching 24 hour, seven day a week phone support for the 31 million users. Wow, they have 31 million users.

SPEAKER_00: Oh, wow. Corrupted. According to the article, Coinbase's phone support only deals with customers whose accounts are locked. This is obviously useful for people who've been hacked and hacking is the big issue. And CNBC. This week, I don't know if you heard it, they went kind of all in with stories of people who were hacked who lost all their crypto. And this led to a lot of regulation talk. If this happens at a bank, you don't lose your money. If it happens at a crypto company, sadly, you do. And so if you want to trade virtual money, and you want to be a rebel with your NFTS and not have to report on your taxes and do everything in the gray area. Well, don't be surprised when you get hacked and there's no recourse. That's the concept here. It's decentralized. Nobody's in charge. Oh, your money got stolen. Okay, well, why don't you go to whoever's running this decentralized network? It's like, Oh, well, it's a decentralized network, Jake, how nobody's running it. Okay, so you chose, you chose to buy imaginary money. And that imaginary money has no guardrails. You're

SPEAKER_07: screwed. Buyer beware. You know, people are taking their crypto and putting it into safety deposit box, cold storage, whatever. If you're going to do this and have any kind of money, you're probably going

SPEAKER_25: to want to be across five different accounts and have it locked. Before we get into the ad, I just

SPEAKER_04: want you to go to linkedin.com slash twist right now linkedin.com slash twist and post your first

SPEAKER_28: job for free. What a deal. Incredibly supportive of you LinkedIn to give that free job to our listeners.

SPEAKER_04: And you know, small business owners are busier than ever the time spent searching for and interviewing wrong candidates, let's face it bad candidates takes away from growing your business. That's why LinkedIn jobs has made it easier to get the candidates worth interviewing faster. And they're giving you your first job for free. Create a free job post in minutes on LinkedIn jobs to reach the world's largest professional network of over 770 million people use screening questions to get your role in front of only the most qualified people then quickly filter and prioritize who you want to interview and eventually hire. We love LinkedIn jobs at launch and inside. And in 2021, we've hired a third producer, a curriculum designer, and a few more researchers. And we're doing all that hiring on LinkedIn. We love it. And we're still hiring. So here is your call to action. One more time. LinkedIn jobs helps you find the right candidates worth interviewing faster. Every week, you know, 40 million job seekers visit LinkedIn. So post your job for free, free F R E E at linkedin.com slash twist. That's right. LinkedIn.com slash twist to post your first job for free. And some conditions do apply because giving you some for free. All right, let's get back to this amazing

SPEAKER_00: episode. And obviously, there's a steep learning curve here. So, you know, if you have a phone support like Coinbase, and you have to take phone calls, I mean, you're gonna be on the phone for hours. It was like the PC companies in the early days, like, you know, I'm Dell, and I'm doing a phone support, and you're calling me about Microsoft Word problems. It's like, well, we're not Microsoft Word. And like, my computer is not working. It's like, we made your computer, you're using software like that's kind of where crypto is people might have a problem with their NFTs or their Dogecoin or

SPEAKER_07: Ethereum. And it's like, this isn't Coinbase is problem. And we're not here to take all these calls and spend an hour on the calls. But what I would say is, you're, there's a lot at stake in these accounts. So of course, there's going to be 1000s of people getting hacked all the time. And according to Aurora's article from October 1, at least 6000 Coinbase customers had their accounts hacked between March and May of this year. That's just a couple of months. So it's a big target. Coinbase explained that the issues as unauthorized third parties exploiting flaws in their SMS account recovery process, the hackers then access accounts and steal crypto. Coinbase spokesman said, we

SPEAKER_34: immediately fixed the flaw and have worked with these customers to regain control of their accounts and reimburse them for funds they lost if they lost it from that specific hack. There are many other

SPEAKER_07: hacks, obviously. This is where some reasonable amount of regulation will have to come into play. And it'll be great for Coinbase for circle for any of the legit players, this regulation is going to drive more customers and more lock in. Because if there was a need to have like FDIC insurance for if people lose their money kind of thing and say the first 100,000 of your crypto is guaranteed to be protected, that would drive people to use these services and create more lock in. So there's a bunch of bumps in the road like this. It's just part of running a company. I know it's really, if you read just the mainstream media, you know, they have a very anti tech bias right now, because tech has stepped in it a bunch of times and tech is a lot bigger than it was, we don't have to re litigate the entire mainstream media versus the press. Some people believe it's because like, you know, biology believes it's because the mainstream media is losing to Facebook and Google. So therefore they hate the tech industry because they, you know, drank their advertising milkshake. I don't buy that as much as I think tech has gotten really big. And people are woke now they they're socialists, the climate in the country is anti corporate, for whatever reason. And I think the media is reflecting that in a large way. In fact, they're hiring people who are anti tech, or who, you know, have an axe to grind with tech. I mean, even the New York Times is hiring people who are, you know, explicitly anti tech, who personally attack tech leaders, you know, in vicious personal ways, because it's how they feel, which is fine. But I mean, it really is creating this sort of mistrust in the mainstream media when they cover stuff, because

SPEAKER_41: all companies that are growing have problems, high scale companies that grow have problems. I mean, you saw this with rental car companies, you've seen it with hotels, you've seen it with cable

SPEAKER_07: companies, if you grow really fast, AOL, you're going to have bumps in the road. Really, I judge all these companies by how quickly they resolve the problem, how quickly they take action. And if you look at Coinbase, look at Robin Hood, man, they realized they got a problem with customer support, and they are going all in on it, they're going to spend tons of money, hire tons of people. And they're going to look at their call centers as a way to build trust, and to grow their businesses. And that's the right move. In fact, when I interviewed the founder of JetBlue, David Nealman, and I actually had him on the cover of one of my magazines back in the day. He said, you know, J. Cal, we had all of our, we had all of our contemporaries with call centers in India and Manila and the Philippines, whatever. And there were cultural barriers, people didn't like talking to people with accents at the, you know, if you remember that time period, it was, you know, a little bit xenophobic, but also there was just lost in translation moments. He said, I am hiring people work from home, moms and dads in Salt Lake City, in the country, basically, and we just tell them they have to have a separate room with a closed door. They have to have a T one line or whatever DSL, you know, and we'll pay for it. And then they get to work whatever shifts they want, he basically created the gig economy. And that's why JetBlue was so loved because he told everybody like Tony Shea, rest in peace, from Zappos that those were times to bond and learn and to create a connection with your customers. And I think that's what Coinbase and Robinhood will learn is that the money they spend, yes, it's going to reduce their profitability. But long term, it's going to build customer loyalty, if you can talk to your customers, my Lord, get on the phone and talk to them. And if you can talk to them when they have a problem, oh my god, even better, because that's a chance for you to turn it around and turn them from a detractor on the net promoter score to a promoter, you want to get them from being a detractor,

SPEAKER_22: they hate you. Not just to being indifferent, but to be like, oh my god, you ever have that customer support experience where the person was so good that you're like, I'm going back to that

SPEAKER_00: restaurant. They comp our desserts. And they gave us a free after dinner drink. Oh my lord, the chef

SPEAKER_07: came out and apologized and explained the problem. I love that restaurant. Like for me, that's the greatest I as I get older, like just seeing flawless, amazing service to me is so inspiring. That's what I've been working on with the syndicate.com actually, and try to actually bring here to this week in startups with the meetups. I want to do more high touch stuff where we get to meet folks. That's why I'm doing the naughty gang and live streams. I was like, podcasting is strange in that you have, you produce it, you distribute it. And there's just no connective tissue. Like where's the connective tissue? Like, we never built into the podcasting

SPEAKER_00: standard comments. Like why aren't there comments in podcasting? Shouldn't that be a standard? Can somebody ask Dave Weiner to make a standard for podcasting, where any podcast episode in my feed, you could comment and there's a second feed of the official comments. So there should be a way to link each episode to a comment thread that the podcaster controls on an open standard. And then if you're on Spotify or iTunes, it's the same RSS feed of comments. What a brilliant idea. Why doesn't that exist? A common comment thread. And then if you post it from Spotify, it would authenticate your Spotify account and you would be a Spotify user said something somebody build that and put it into the open standard. Just think about how great that would be if people could put comments, you know,

SPEAKER_07: or, you know, at minute 52, I could post a comment, man, that'd be incredible. I mean,

SPEAKER_46: I know it could be chaos too. But so that's, I think one of the things any great business leader, entrepreneur learns when they're running these businesses is, yeah, don't hide from your customers,

SPEAKER_01: like run to the customers not away from them. Okay, so now let's get to this little dicey, edgy

SPEAKER_00: interview idea with Max Chapkin, who is the author of a interesting new book, I wouldn't say great, but definitely interesting. The contrarian Peter Thiel and Silicon Valley's pursuit of power. We get into it, I challenge him a little bit specifically on his repeated claims in the book

SPEAKER_01: that Peter Thiel is white supremacy adjacent. And that Peter Thiel has a affinity for young

SPEAKER_00: attractive men. And it gets a little heated, a little challenge, but he was a great guest. And I very much enjoyed the book. And I know people in Peter Thiel's orbit do not like the book. So it's a

SPEAKER_49: great interview, I might be getting a little blowback of why I did this interview even my personal

SPEAKER_01: circles. We'll see. Stick with us. For so many leaders, there's a moment in your personal and

SPEAKER_04: professional life, where you realize you're in your own way. Yes, you're the blocker, you know, you need help. And that's exactly where belay comes in. But delegating your bookkeeping to someone can be intimidating. It's scary. Imagine, though, how your business would transform if you didn't have to worry about producing reports and balance sheets. If you had more time, energy and focus to work on things that only you can do, like your product or hiring, you could achieve bigger goals because you have the freedom to focus on what matters. Belay the incredible organization revolutionizing productivity with their virtual assistant service for growing organizations and help you. That's why they're giving our listeners a free download of the cost of not doing your bookkeeping. Your finances are not the place to be experimenting, holding your breath, fingers crossed and hoping for the best. So if you're ready to wave the white flag on handling your red and black margins, let one of belay's experienced remote bookkeepers help. Get back to doing what only you can do, growing your organization and leave the bookkeeping to belay. Just text twist to 55123 or visit belaysolutions.com slash twist for your free download of the cost of not doing your bookkeeping today.

SPEAKER_47: All right, next up on the program is the author of a new book, The Contrarian, Peter Thiel and Silicon

SPEAKER_46: Valley's Pursuit of Power. I just finished the book. And the book moves briskly through lots of the well documented life and career of an obviously quirky Thiel, somebody I know not personally, but

SPEAKER_52: somebody I know all the people around. So it was a unique read for me, having known 90% of what's in the book.

SPEAKER_53: And it goes through all the obvious stuff that we here in Silicon Valley. Now the Stanford review, PayPal, seafaring states, the Thiel fellows, investing in Facebook, creating Palantir, these are all efficiently chronicled by the author Max, which really catches the audience up on what we hear in the techno technology industry witnessed up close and personal. And the book starts building its case that Peter Thiel is brilliant, dangerous and powerful. And maybe even that he's a white supremacist, or maybe dabbles near that line. And maybe the author dips into his being enamored with young men. Insiders in the tech business will probably laugh at the contrarian's overestimation

SPEAKER_41: of Thiel's power. While New York's media circles and the woke left will salivate at some of this

SPEAKER_46: positioning. But in the final act, the author shifts from what we largely know. And that's been recycled from some of the known sources of information from Gawker to the books written about PayPal. And he hits some really new information, and certainly was new to me,

SPEAKER_52: and has broken some news. And that's the section where he talks about Cambridge Analytica, Rand Paul, Trump. And you start to learn that maybe a lot of what we witnessed with Trump was,

SPEAKER_46: should have been or was predictable in this path that Peter took from the Stanford Review, being bullied as a little boy, for being smart and a nerd, all the way up until his, what I would

SPEAKER_54: consider his Icarus moment supporting a nationalistic candidate. And then maybe using the insights and

SPEAKER_46: data that he gained as an investor in Facebook, to put the most polarizing unqualified president in the

SPEAKER_53: White House in history, or at least help. Thiel hasn't become exactly irrelevant in the technology industry. But he's no more, no more influential or powerful than the other dozens of billionaires here. He's just a lot more quirky. And the book really does a great job of catching people up on

SPEAKER_46: that, and then showing where it eventually wound up. So welcome to author, Max Chafkin.

SPEAKER_55: Max Chafkin Thanks, Jason. Wow, what a what an intro. I mean, I feel like you've given me, you know, several things I have to push back on. But,

SPEAKER_58: but, but, but, but really appreciate it, really appreciate reading. And yeah,

SPEAKER_53: excited about the conversation. So let's just start with the, you know, obvious question. Why? This is your first book? Or have you? Yeah, yeah. Yeah,

SPEAKER_63: it's my first book. So why did you pick Peter Thiel as the subject of your first book? And something that I'm assuming you spent three or four years working on? Yeah. Well, so, so

SPEAKER_65: I'm really interested in the story of kind of how Silicon Valley became what it is, right? And when I mean like this, you know, it went from, you know, being important and culturally relevant, you know, in the 1990s, but kind of like a sideshow still, even during the tech boom, to being, you know, I would argue, the most important economic center in the world, the most important cultural center in the world. And maybe it's not quite the most important political center in the world, but it is, but obviously it's becoming more relevant politically than, than it was. And, and the story of how does, how does this kind of outsider industry become so important in our lives? And that's, you know, that's anyone who's been covering tech, right? Like that's the story we've all been writing. And, you know, just when I was thinking about, you know, who's been involved in that story, I think Peter plays a big role, right? As you say, and I totally agree, there are other people you could, you could sort of tell the story of Silicon Valley through somebody else. And there have been like these other very important figures, but, but I think Peter's trajectory is pretty unique and pretty interesting. You know, PayPal, I think even people who know about it, even people talk about the PayPal mafia, I think they kind of underrate just how influential it was not, not in terms of, I mean, of course it's influential in the ways that like, you know, it's how people move money on eBay and it's this big, valuable payments platform. But I mean, in terms of creating kind of a playbook of for like how startups are built. And I think, and I think, so I think Peter is really important there. I think he's really important in Facebook, you know, one of the defining companies, you know, maybe the defining company of the last 20 years, you know, Peter and Elon, of course, have a, have a complicated relationship, but, but you know, that relationship has been really important to, to both them. And I think, you know, it's hard to imagine SpaceX, like, I think SpaceX, you know, maybe probably succeed, would succeed if, if Peter hadn't invested in it, but certainly would have. Yeah. But, but he played a big role in, in, in making sure that at a very difficult time in kind of the business trajectory of Elon Musk, when during the recession and stuff, you know, he was there. I think Founders Fund, just played this a huge, not just in terms of, of finding important companies, but in terms of like articulating kind of an intellectual case for startups and a very specific kind of, you know, startup building philosophy. I think same, say the same thing about zero to one. And so I think like all that just by itself, right, would be enough to justify a book because he's an important figure. But why did you pick him? What, what is it about him that made you interested? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I, and, and so, but then there's, then there's what happened in 2016, where, um, where, where Teal, who is, as I said, this important figure, um, does something that I think people probably who knew him weren't hugely surprised by, but the outside world was surprised because, you know, how does a venture capitalist, somebody who's, you know, obsessed with the future, obsessed with, you know, um, bringing about change and a very specific kind of change end up endorsing, you know, um, uh, basically reactionary and how does, how does an immigrant, you know, get behind somebody who's running a candidacy. That's basically a nativist candidacy. Um, how does, how does a gay man, um, get behind somebody who's from political party that has, has been super hostile to, to gays and lesbians. And I think there's like a really interesting and, um, and complicated story you can tell, but like that, that contradiction I thought is really interesting. Right. And I, like, I'm somebody who is interested in, in kind of, in those kinds of contradictions. And, and that's what drew me to it initially. And as I dug deeper, you know, I do think that, you know, for all the reasons I articulate at the beginning, Peter's important, but he also saw something that was pretty, pretty important with Trump, even if you can disagree with the, with his, you know, decision to support Trump, but he engaged politically at a time when I don't think as many people in tech were engaging politically and he was kind of a head there too. And I think even if you regard the Trump thing as I, as it, you know, it sounds like from your intro, you do as, as a disaster, uh, you know, huge mistake or something. Um, I think you have to also agree that it was kind of brilliant in a way, um, as an investment. Um, and, and so anyway, I think

SPEAKER_25: the combination of brilliant as an investment, I mean, it's basically made him a pariah in the tech industry. So why would it be a brilliant investment?

SPEAKER_80: No, I, I, I don't think it's, I think it's certainly. Well, when I say that his business

SPEAKER_83: is investing in companies and, uh, nine out of 10 founders who would have taken his money before

SPEAKER_65: supporting Trump, I think wouldn't. I mean, people, uh, of course you definitely hear that, but, but I mean, people are still taking his money. I think that. Well, it's not just that I hear it,

SPEAKER_25: it's that I'm one of the most active investors in the world. So I see it. Yeah, yeah, no, no,

SPEAKER_85: I, I, look, I, I, I respect the point of view. I'm just saying, I think if you look at his net worth,

SPEAKER_65: if you look at, um, how his companies have done, you know, in that time, um, he's still making a lot of big investments. Um, maybe they're not the same investments that he would have made.

SPEAKER_83: No, I just think it's like a, this might be the one thing that we'll get to obviously, um, this seems like an interesting jumping off point because I think that's, you're a New York media guy,

SPEAKER_52: right? Like, uh, worked a fast company, you're a career journalist. Yes. How old are you? Uh,

SPEAKER_23: I'm 39. 39. So you've been around, you actually remember the dot-com boom, you were graduating high

SPEAKER_89: school at the time, right? Yeah, man, I was reading Wired and, uh, yeah, you know, I remember it.

SPEAKER_52: So it's, it's just a very interesting to read your perspective of it as an outsider or a journalist from New York versus being here in it. Um, because I did think it's inc. I was actually very impressed with how accurate the stories are having witnessed them firsthand from, you know, the Stanford stuff into PayPal. I think all of that, you nailed. I think this concept that he is extremely powerful and influential was the part I was like, huh? Or that people were scared of him. Um, you mentioned in the book that people feared him. Uh, and I'm curious where that came

SPEAKER_07: because I think over since before Trump is slightly before Trump, he became less relevant in Silicon

SPEAKER_52: Valley because he was less active and actually investing directly in companies. Uh, and you know, it kind of handed off founders fund to Brian Singerman and the crew over there. Luke obviously had left to start his own fund. So I think his kind of power base, he kind of gave up, right? So do you, where did you get this, um, perception that he's feared in Silicon Valley? I mean, I heard it from

SPEAKER_94: many, many sources. Um, and I think, um, yeah, I, I mean, I, I can, I can understand that somebody

SPEAKER_65: like yourself, um, yeah, I don't think you have a lot to fear from Peter Thiel. Um, uh, but I think if you're a startup founder, um, uh, people, there is a perception that, you know, uh, that, that sort of breaking with, um, you know, that, that the sort of PayPal mafia consensus, um, uh, either on politics or in some ways on tech, you know, makes you difficult to fund. Um, and I, I, I recognize, like, I think there are people, and I talked to, you know, former, uh, Teal fellows who kind of explained to me, uh, people both who disagree with Peter's politics and those who agree with them. And, you know, I, I, I heard how Teal fellows kind of have to navigate it, right? Because they recognize that some invest, some potential investors, um, don't agree with Peter and don't, you know, would never, you know, invest in his companies. Um, but I do think there's enough of a kind of conservative community, um, even there, you know, even in the belly of the beast, um, where I don't think he's quite the pariah that you're kind of paying him to be.

SPEAKER_52: Well, I wouldn't, I wouldn't say pariah. I, you know, I think you, the, the number of investors in Silicon Valley is so great that, you know, one investor just really doesn't have any sort of lock on it, even Sequoia, even Kleiner Perkins, even Andreessen Horowitz, the scale of Silicon Valley is so much different today that it's not like, uh, the small circuit it was, you know, that we should

SPEAKER_96: describe with, you know, um, Zuckerberg going to Peter Thiel, instead of going to Ruloff, you know, and, uh, going to Sequoia at that time. Yeah, it was a small circuit. You know,

SPEAKER_83: there were a dozen firms you probably would take your consumer startup to now it's 1200, you know,

SPEAKER_47: it's literally a hundred X. Zendesk is the go-to tool for customer support. And they also offer a suite of tools designed to remove the difficulties of sales software. You can get access to Zendesk suite of sales tools, plus their industry leading support software free for six months as part of Zendesk for startups. You'll also get access to Zendesk community of startup founders and partners and dedicated onboarding guidance and support. Here's a little testimonial from one of my portfolio companies, STEEZY. They sell software to learn how to dance. STEEZY uses Zendesk Explorer

SPEAKER_04: and their ticket tagging system to track which features the users are most excited about. Then they relay that info to their product team, which is just brilliant. For STEEZY, Zendesk creates a positive relationship with members and it empowers them to contribute to STEEZY's growth. So here's your call to action, the old CTA in the business. Get six months of Zendesk for startups free at Zendesk.com. That's right. To qualify, you must have under 50 employees, have raised a series A or below, and be a new Zendesk customer. What a great deal. You can get that six months of Zendesk for free at Zendesk.com. Start building an amazing customer

SPEAKER_54: experience at Zendesk.com. There seems to be this repeating accusation and or insinuation in the book

SPEAKER_53: that Peter is either a white supremacist or likes to hang out with white supremacists or people who've previously been white supremacists. Let me just ask you outright, do you think Peter Thiel is racist

SPEAKER_104: and a white supremacist? I don't think he's a white supremacist and the book doesn't say that.

Chamath Palihapitiya: No, and clearly it doesn't, right? I didn't say it did. It just kind of says like,

SPEAKER_106: this person was a white supremacist, this person was previously and he seems to, Chuck Johnson, he's next to them all the time. I think he has at various times in his career

SPEAKER_65: associated himself and chosen to associate himself with really provocative people. People who are deliberately poking it in the eye of the system. And those people have, and this goes all the way back to the Stanford review and the diversity myth. And I think in many of those cases, right, there's two ways to see it and you can either see some of these things as free speech stunts or as something more insidious. I think, like I said, I don't think, I don't think white supremacy is a big part of his ideology, but he does seem to be at least comfortable enough with it that, that, that like, you know, that these, that he's not worried about these kind of slightly trolly or

Chamath Palihapitiya: provocative things. And, and, you know, he's definitely, um, yeah, he comes up six or seven times in the

SPEAKER_52: book specifically around South Africa's apartheid in the early days, which I didn't actually know that story. Yeah. Maybe you could tell that story. And, and does that feel to you to, because

SPEAKER_114: what I took away from the book is after the six or seven mention of it, that you were kind of

SPEAKER_106: saying, listen, he's, he's, he's white supremacist adjacent, right? Uh, which maybe is just the people

SPEAKER_65: around him are, you know? Yeah, I think, I, I mean, I think he is definitely at times kind of played footsie with some very radical ideas. Um, let me speak to the, to the South Africa thing, because to me that, I mean, I can tell you the story, right? Yeah. Tell us the story because I

SPEAKER_60: don't, this is a story you actually talked to the woman who was the principal in it, right?

SPEAKER_65: Yeah. There are two, um, there are two, uh, people who have accounts like this, one of whom, uh, is, is on the record in the book and one of whom has published a medium post. Um, they're both, you know, I think very credible. Um, the, the medium poster, you know, is a very successful, you know, Stanford graduate was a long time Stanford administrator. Um, you know, I, I, but let me just say a couple of things here. Um, Peter Thiel had a very unusual childhood. Um, he, he moved around a lot and, you know, he's talked about being an outsider and he was an outsider, right? Not just, not, not just because of his, um, sexuality, not, not just because, um, his parents are German, but because they moved all the time, right? And they lived, he did live in South Africa and Southwest Africa, which, uh, now modern day Namibia at the time was a, um, you know, an apartheid state. Um, and, um, I don't think that makes him somebody who defends apartheid or anything like that. I do think that probably coming to Stanford, um, in, you know, the mid eighties, you know, remember the mid eighties apartheid was a huge issue on college campuses. It was like the defining, um, sort of like left to right issue. And I think, um, Peter has talked about this. He's, you know, he's talked about feeling like, you know, basically on the outs at Stanford, right? It's, he's at this very liberal institution. And I look, I, this is not, I'm, I, this is my read on it, but I imagine that some of those apartheid protests may have felt very personal, you know, and, and not because not necessarily because you are agreeing with it or something like that, but because it, you know, it's just your fan, you know what I mean? Like, I think it, I think there's a possibility that, you know, it, that, that, that might have contributed to the, to the, to the personal nature of it in the same way that if you were born in South Africa,

SPEAKER_77: you know, and a white person, you might take it personally, even if you weren't trying to like,

SPEAKER_25: so tell that maybe it would be helpful here to tell the story of what happened specifically,

SPEAKER_126: because he had some pretty charged comments about apartheid. Yeah. The, the, the, the anecdotes,

SPEAKER_65: they, they both amount to black women at Stanford who had heard that Peter had very extreme politics and who confronted him about apartheid. And I think it was kind of going around that he was, you know, he spent time in South Africa and Peter made a comment or made comments to the effect that, and I don't have this in front of me, but I'll just summarize, you know, it's, it's an economic system and we shouldn't meddle with the economic systems of, you know, other countries. Now, look,

SPEAKER_25: I, and that the black people in South Africa were doing better than the black South African

SPEAKER_65: countries that were run by black people. And I, like, I think that these comments are abhorrent. Um, Teal has denied them, um, and, uh, or said he doesn't remember talking about them and that he, um, he did not support apartheid. Um, I think, um, I think if you look at what else was being written, not, not by Peter Thiel, but by like the Wall Street Journal editorial page, like those comments are not as far outside of the mainstream as one might imagine they are today. I mean, this was like, this was like a pretty common thing that right-wing people were arguing at the time. So, so I don't think it's actually as crazy as like, you know, having lunch with Myo Yiannopoulos or whatever. I think it's, I think it's, I think it's actually more, um, you know,

SPEAKER_85: more of a piece of a time. And I think it's important to talk about that stuff. Um, you know,

SPEAKER_60: and, and, and how did the black women, the two, you said it was two black women who you talked to,

SPEAKER_34: who responded to, what was there? Or one of them, I guess you read the blog post or one of you talked to, you talked to both. What did they tell you about those situations and how they felt?

SPEAKER_65: I mean, they told me that it was horrible. I mean, it's it, I mean, no, it's, I think, and I think that's the part of the story that, that, uh, prompted them to talk to me, prompted them to speak publicly, because of course it's not just a political statement. It is a statement when you're, when you're making a statement to a black person who's in front, who's a human being standing in front of you, right? That, that, that is, that, that has a personal quality to it. Yeah. And, and I think that was the, that, that was what was upsetting. Um, and I think, um, like, I don't think, first of all, as I said, he's denied it. I don't think, you know, one or, you know, even a couple of mistakes or whatever should define somebody's, you know, life or beliefs and, and things like that. Um, uh, but I do think that, you know, you know, it speaks to a, to kind of where he was at the time, which is somebody who was, um, you know, pretty political and really committed to, um, you know, political provocation. And I, you know, again, if he, even if those stories aren't true, I think that assessment, it, you know, is true. Um, but I, and I should say, I do, I believe the stories.

SPEAKER_52: Yeah. I mean, at that time, it's people who were from South Africa were pretty sensitive about this

SPEAKER_83: issue and the transition they were going through in South Africa. And a lot of the people in the West were saying, we're not going to play Sun City. And it was a, a very big cause celeb at the time

SPEAKER_41: where literally every rock musician was saying, don't go to South Africa. So it was a pretty

SPEAKER_137: charged anti, it wasn't just anti-apartheid. I think it fell to people in South Africa, anti-South

SPEAKER_18: Africa. And so maybe there was a little bit of that. If this in fact did happen, uh, the quote from

SPEAKER_52: the book, Maxwell said she was taken aback as he explained, matter of fact, that the country should

SPEAKER_83: not be held to more the moral standards of American students without any point acknowledging that Maxwell as a black woman might find this offensive. He said it with no affect with all Maxwell. This was possibly the creepiest thing about it. Um, and you go into that affect a whole bunch. Um,

SPEAKER_52: and then you also talk about, Hey, with the, um, PayPal group, it was all men. Um, and then it was a sort of, uh, insinuation about, uh, hire, you know, surrounding himself with a lot of young men, uh, in the Peter Thiel fellows. That was something that also is mentioned, I think four

SPEAKER_83: or five times in the book, this, uh, you know, surrounding himself with attractive young men.

SPEAKER_141: What's the thought there? I mean, I'm not, there's no, that, that, that's not an innuendo. I mean,

SPEAKER_65: it's just an observation. Um, I mean, I think Peter, um, has like an intellectual type and it's like a, uh, like hyper verbal, um, super provocative, uh, man who is from, um, an elite background, but who's willing to like criticize those elites and also young and good looking you say in the book. Yeah. Yeah, for sure. I mean, I think it's, I mean, you know, like, I think the, the, the archetype here is like Josh Hawley, right? Like Josh Hawley is like classic kind of like kind of guy. I think who, who, um, would appeal to somebody like Peter as like a, as like an intellectual, I'm not talking again, not, not speaking sexually here. I'm talking about as somebody who he thinks has a, has an impressive platform, et cetera. You know, Hawley is, you know, handsome, kind of all American good looks, hyper verbal. And yet, and from, from these elite institutions knows how to talk the, you know, knows how to talk that, that lingo. Um, and also of course is totally willing to just, you know, jab in their face. And I think that's the, you know, the, you know, that's the, to the extent that he's interested in influence, like that is often the, the vector that you see for influence.

SPEAKER_35: Some people believe that the gawk, the gawker, um, instances kind of cracked Peter or tilted him

SPEAKER_00: to a certain extent, maybe got him off his game. And maybe was, uh, when he

SPEAKER_52: he stopped being focused on investing in startups and maybe got more, I don't know if I say off track. And, and you seem to sort of chronicle that. And I remember that very well as well, since I took some hits in Valley way, uh, quite, quite unfairly and they were lying scumbags. So, uh, you know, I'm, I'm sort of curious you as a media guy, how you feel about gawker itself. And if you think gawker was, you know, what, what was Peter right about gawker? Because I know the media and I, listen, I, I'm a unique case here because I started as a New York journalist. I'm a New Yorker who worked in media and then I'm living in the Valley and I know I'm not friends with Peter. I've probably hung out with Peter five times, but I have a lot of mutual friends around him, obviously. Absolutely. And so I'm wondering your thoughts on gawker itself. You personally, do you think gawkers as a publication, um, crossed the line too many times and that it was virtuous for him to go after them? Or do you think it was, um, absolutely horrible that, um, a billionaire could shut, because the view of the New York media is it sucks that a billionaire tech person can shut down a publication. Um, and then the view of anybody who was subject to gawker or value egg is, well, they're lying and they're attacking people and they're posting revenge porn. So these people

SPEAKER_65: should go out of business. What do you think personally? So, um, well, I, I just want to push back on a couple of things there just real quick. Um, number one, I actually don't think it, it pushed him off his game startup wise. I think it pushed him off his game hedge fund wise, you know, like, Oh, that's true. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. It coincided with the kind of breakup of clarium. And, um, I actually think it may have pushed him more back towards the kind of like the startup world and away from the hedge fund world in a way, partly because the, the, whatever the fund didn't do well. Um, the other thing I want to say is, um, the characterization that the media, um, you know, loves gawker or something is totally not true. I mean, basically media people, most of like elite media people hated gawker, right? Because it went after them all the time. And when you saw the Peter Thiel thing, um, there were lots of famous journalists, like, you know, basically applauding. Uh, so, so like, I don't think, uh, again, I, I, it's the media is, is definitely not a monolith on this. No, definitely not. Um, personally, and, and especially at the highest levels of the media, the media people who really, really matter, like they were sending Peter congratulation emails.

SPEAKER_85: They weren't, they weren't sending him. Fascinating. Uh, you know, I, I like, you know, and they were giving him the well done. Yeah. Um, so, okay. So what do I, how do you think about it? Yeah. Of course. Um, so I think, I think a lot of what gawker published, um, was abhorrent. Um,

SPEAKER_65: and that wasn't journalism and would by the standards of 2020 not be considered journalism and would not be published. Like I'm an editor right at, at Bloomberg and, and I would not let somebody publish, um, you know, Peter Thiel is totally gay people, um, for lots of reasons. Right. Um, but, but I think, you know, the, the, um, the idea of, of announcing to the world, somebody sexuality, like before they're not ready to do so, um, is not cool. It's not something we should do. And it's not a very good defense to say, well, he was out, uh, to his coworkers and to his friends. Right. Because like, that's a different situation. Um, I also think gawker did some important journalism and I think that, that, um, at the time, uh, there, that they were right about certain things. Harvey Weinstein. Yeah. Uh, not just, no, and not just about like the, not just about that kind of thing. I'm, I'm saying like they were, um, covering, uh, Silicon Valley as a power center before most people really realized it was a power center and they were right about that. Um, and, and, and they did. And as you said, there, there was some good journalism. I think basically like, look, I think, I think that smart people can kind of disagree about, um, whether Peter was right to feel aggrieved enough to like, you know, take, take legal action against gawker. Um, the, where, where I start to feel uncomfortable is the, um, is like the secret campaign by a billionaire to destroy a media company, uh, through this kind of backdoor of totally brilliant.

SPEAKER_77: I think you gotta respect it from like a, you know, kind of gamesmanship. Like Peter is an excellent chess player. Like he had his people. He funded a group of people to look through every

SPEAKER_52: story on Gawker and Valleyweg, find the aggrieved parties and figure out which of those cases were

SPEAKER_28: viable, flood the system with lawsuits. I think maybe he did five or six.

SPEAKER_121: Well, it's never been exactly clear how many he funded. You'll see in the book, it's pretty careful. Cause that, cause we don't actually know. Right. Like how many he funded and how

SPEAKER_77: many he incur, there's, there's a sense, I think that he maybe encouraged some, but may not, may

SPEAKER_165: not have actually, you know, anyway, the way he explained it to me. Yeah. Was I, um, funding it

SPEAKER_52: for people who have no recourse, because if you were, unless you have over $10 million, $20 million to sue Gawker, Gawker can keep lying about people. And Gawker did lie about people. Gawker can keep posting

SPEAKER_83: revenge porn. They posted revenge porn. They could out the CFO of a giant media company for being

SPEAKER_18: closeted and having, uh, uh, trust allegedly with, uh, a male escort while married. I mean,

SPEAKER_52: you remember this long list of horrific things they did. Yeah. And, um, and I'm dancing around the specifics. Um, but, uh, he said, I'm doing this for all of them and myself because they shouldn't exist.

SPEAKER_07: Is there any validity to that argument to you as a media guy?

SPEAKER_94: Well, I mean, I, I, I mean, I understand the argument. I, I just think that there's a very

SPEAKER_65: strong argument on the other side that, that by doing it, you create a lot of problems if you want to live in a free society. And, and the problem is that, um, once this has been done and, and, and, and more than just doing it right, I think part of the problem when you're talking about like incentives is the way he has talked about it since, including kind of bragging about it, talking about it, like I was this awesome thing. Um, you're creating a permission structure, uh, permission structure, um, for other billionaires to do the exact same thing. How many times has it happened since? Well, we, I mean, it hasn't happened, but we don't know. And, and there have been.

SPEAKER_178: No, you would know. There'd be a lawsuit. We would know.

SPEAKER_65: It took eight years for this thing to, it took eight years for this thing to percolate. It hasn't been.

SPEAKER_181: No, but has there been a publication that has.

SPEAKER_65: There have been tons. I can tell you for a fact that there have been more, there are more pre-publication letters now written to news organizations than there were before. Um, Charles Harder has gone on to a very, um, successful career doing this kind of thing. Now, now again, each of, in each of those cases, I think you can talk about the specifics and, and I don't know, like, you know, he sued the Daily Mail, um, over some, you know, these, this coverage of Melania Trump, which I think was pretty, pretty terrible. Um, so, so I don't know,

SPEAKER_182: but there definitely has been. Who's that guy again? Charles? What was his last name? I forgot.

SPEAKER_77: Charles Harder was the lawyer. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Who represented Hogan and who has, you know, kind of, um, which they won by the way, right? Like they wanted hands down easily.

SPEAKER_65: And that's, and that's kind of why it was such a brilliant, um, sort of chess move because they found this case where like, it was so clear cut and, and, and they had a jury in Tampa. Hulk Hogan is from Tampa. They had like, you know, there's just like no universe where, where like they could lose that case. And, and, and you can totally see why the jury, um, found the way they did because, because, you know, they're being asked, um, a very narrow question and, um, and it's pretty clear that Gawker had done something wrong. And, um, but, but I think that it has, it has long-term, um, implications that, that are bad. And I think, and, and I, and I'm afraid that it was partly kind of by design because the, the goal of a case like this isn't just to publish, to punish, um, Gawker. It's to send a message to, to anyone who might be tempted to, um,

SPEAKER_188: How many times did Peter do this before Gawker added him?

SPEAKER_65: How many times did he do it?

SPEAKER_85: He sued a publication into oblivion. I mean, I don't know. Hopefully none.

SPEAKER_190: Zero, yeah. How many times has he done it since? Again, I don't know. Hopefully no. Well, how many, I mean, the answer is zero. I can tell you, I can tell you that.

SPEAKER_25: The point I'm pushing back on this is because I think media people like to put up this, you know, uh, united front of like, oh my God, this has a chilling effect.

SPEAKER_52: But the fact is this would never happen at Bloomberg. This would never happen at the New York times because New York times wouldn't print revenge porn or out people or otherwise lie about them or invade their privacy.

SPEAKER_83: So I think it's like maybe a circle of the wagons of the media, which listen, I'm part of the media. I get it. But I also think Peter Thiel, I think that what you nailed in your book, uh, and I'll give you credit on this one explicitly because I witnessed this because I know Nick personally. I know. I don't know Peter all that personally, but you know, obviously I'm around him. I mean, and specifically talked to him a number of times about this because I was attacked by Gawker many times. Yeah, yeah, of course. And I competed against Denton with Weblogs Inc. So I know him personally and I actually consider myself kind of friendly with Nick. Would go to lunch with him anytime and have.

SPEAKER_52: Um, you know, I think that what you nailed is this is a story of, uh, two gay men who had two different perceptions about being closeted and a third gay man, Owen Thomas, who was,

SPEAKER_53: as he told me, having his own struggles at the time, who was going absolutely insane writing crazy stuff for Valleywag, a lot of which he now regrets.

SPEAKER_52: Um, and that really is the beginning and the end of it. Like if Peter didn't feel so strong, if, if Denton didn't feel so strongly about outing people and the hypocrisy of being gay and closeted in 2010, whenever this happened, 2008, 2010, I can't remember the exact date, um, and Peter hadn't been so scared of losing his Saudi LPs.

SPEAKER_07: This really was about the end game of, you know, being gay in American society in some ways.

SPEAKER_65: So, yeah, I mean, and I, I think that I want to say two things. I mean, one is, you know, as you've kind of hinted in all sorts of ways, um, the book, um, I think it's a, it's a, it's a journalistic book and I think it's fair, but it's critical at times of Peter. And, and I made no secret about that when I was working on the book and I didn't, I was never threatened by, um, by Peter or anybody who was purporting to represent him. You know, he didn't make my life easy, but he didn't try to stop me. And, and I think, you know, to the, to, to your point, right? Like that's not something that's, that, that is to his credit. Um, uh, and, and I think, um, it's good. Uh, I also know that, you know, talking to sources, right? They know about this. They, they talk about Gawker, right? Because, you know, Peter is a very powerful guy and, and while like you have articulated like a very clear, like explanation of like why he did this and why he's never going to do it to anybody else, he would never do it to Bloomberg. Like it's not necessarily clear to a whistleblower, um, that that's the case. And we're talking about somebody who now, you know, has a great deal of power, you know, for better or worse. And I, I just think it's, it's not a great situation and maybe, maybe, maybe it's fine for Peter, right? But it's not a great situation when we've created a, basically a playbook and a permission structure by which any billionaire, um, can intimidate, um, uh, you know, free media.

SPEAKER_77: And well, here's a way for free media, not to get them in trouble.

SPEAKER_194: Don't print revenge porn.

SPEAKER_77: Of course.

SPEAKER_52: But, but, but I mean, this is where your argument breaks down so perfectly. Like you're kind of making this into, you know, like Peter Thiel is going to do this to all journalists and journalism's got this existential crisis. If journalists don't break the law, they would not be sued out of existence.

SPEAKER_80: The end. And, you know, and I approached this, I did the book, obviously, you know, I'm not,

SPEAKER_65: you know, it has, are you scared of Peter? People keep asking me that. And I keep saying the same thing, which is, yeah, but I'm scared of every billionaire because anyone could do this thing, you know, I mean, you know, that's, that's the truth. Um, uh, and like, I'm not a billionaire. Like, I don't know what the, you know, what, how, you know, and, and I think like my, and I have a big institution behind me, right? Like I work for another billionaire. Uh, so, so, um, so, you know, I, I obviously have, and I, and I'm published by a major publisher. Like there are a lot of reasons why I don't, I, you know, why I wouldn't be afraid. But, but I do think, um, I think it's really important that people are free to talk to journalists. I think like what is happening with this Facebook whistleblower is really important to our society. And I worry that if you get too many, if you get another gawker, um, whether it's Peter Thiel or somebody, Rupert Murdoch or whoever, um, that, that you're going to start to erode, you know,

SPEAKER_198: freedom in this country. And if we erode freedom in this country, we're going to erode freedom in the whole world. So I think it's not a good thing.

SPEAKER_200: Yeah. Um, okay.

SPEAKER_53: Uh, let's go on to, um, what's ha, what happened at Facebook, I think is super critical.

SPEAKER_52: Um, the Cambridge Analytica stuff, uh, all the way up to Jared Kushner and the relationship

SPEAKER_83: with Trump, um, I think is the most interesting.

SPEAKER_00: Let me ask you, knowing what, you know, you spoke to hundreds of people for this book, I think.

SPEAKER_121: Yeah, over 150, uh, yeah. People closely connected to Peter in one way or another.

SPEAKER_44: Yeah. So knowing what you know, do you think Trump would have been elected

SPEAKER_18: or what are the, what is the percentage chance Trump would have been elected if Peter had never supported or gotten involved in the 2016 election?

SPEAKER_65: I think he increased Trump's chances like in a real way, but not like, it's not like he doubled Trump's chances, right?

SPEAKER_58: I think it was like, uh, you know, 10%, 10%, something like that.

SPEAKER_65: Yeah. I mean, my view is, um, that when I, and I heard, I heard this talking to people in the Trump world, right? Peter was very valuable to them because of course, all billionaires are valuable to politicians. Um, but, but Peter was especially valuable to Trump because Trump did not have kind of like business credibility. Like say what you want about Peter, right? Like, I mean, he's controversial and he was even controversial before the Trump thing, but he has like a certain amount of cred that is like a little bit more than like the average Trump world person. So like, I would say that's an understatement. Okay.

SPEAKER_209: I'm being very kind now. Okay. You're being pretty kind there. Remember the RNC, right? It was like Chachi from happy days and like a bunch of real estate guys. Some of who are. It was a shit show. And like, like half of those guys are like, have been indicted or would be in anyway.

SPEAKER_25: Um, and then it literally is a clown car. It's like, it's, it's the grifters and the washed up criminals will do a 10k speaking gig

SPEAKER_54: for any, you know, Russian affiliated, you know, syndicate.

SPEAKER_122: I mean, then you have this like serious, very serious venture capitalist who is really

SPEAKER_65: respected, respected by people like me in media. Like, of course, Peter has his, you know, there are people who don't like him in media. He's legit. Yeah. And so he was valuable to them and, um, for that reason. And that like, that's why he had the like prime time speaking slot on the last day of the RNC, the day, you know, when Trump spoke, um, I think that that speech, um, while he might've been a little uncomfortable with talking about his sexuality, I think it was like a really important, um, I think it was important moment in the Trump campaign. I think it was an important moment, like in the history of America. Um, I, like a really cool moment, um, frankly, where, because.

SPEAKER_216: Because a gay man spoke at the RNC.

SPEAKER_65: Not just because he spoke, but because of the way he was received, right? He was applauded. There was a standing ovation. You go back to the last RNC when, um, when somebody, a gay person talked about their sexuality on stage and like half the convention was like, you know, taking their hats off to pray, you know, for the, for the, for the guy's soul. Right. So like big change from that, you know, from one to the other. And, and I think like in, and, and, and having, and the fact that it was Peter, somebody who has not been super comfortable, you know, he's not like somebody who's like wearing his identity on his sleeve, I think all of that made it very powerful, um, and powerful, you know, both for Trump voters, but also probably for, um, you know, independence, um, and some Democrats, you know, Trump, a lot of Democrats voted for Peter. I mean, for Trump. Um, but, but the really more important thing I would say is, um, if you remember October, Access Hollywood tape comes out, right? Yep. And that point, Trump's candidacy was not looking good. It was tatering. Yeah, all the, like a lot of mainstream Republicans were backing away. The donor class is like nowhere to be found. And, and the two things happened, one of which is like WikiLeaks. Right. And I think that probably helped Trump a lot more than, uh, Peter Thiel, but, but I think Thiel coming in, making a, you know, $1 million plus donation, pretty big donation, you know, in turn, and as, as far as these things go and giving a speech where he kind of tried to contextualize, you know, and put into context, the remarks to defend them essentially, where he didn't, he didn't defend Trump for saying, you know, grab him by the pussy. But what he said was, Hey, you know, we got to take this guy seriously. Yeah. He has some, he, you know, seriously, not literally that was, that was the Thiel catchphrase. And I think, um, you know, that was, that had some influence and it, and in terms of both like changing the news cycle and, um, and so, so I think, I think all that made like a, a, a, a significant difference. I don't know. Again, I think Trump, uh, you know, there were a lot of things that went well for Trump and,

SPEAKER_220: and not sure maybe, maybe could have done it without Thiel, but it was a very close election.

SPEAKER_54: So, um, it does seem like Zuckerberg, um, has been influenced by Peter Thiel in an outsized way.

SPEAKER_52: Peter obviously liquidated his Facebook shares. He doesn't think Facebook is the most important company in the world. He's been pretty clear about that yet. Um, he still seems to have his ear and he seems to have walked him into the White House and created a pretty, um, a chummy relationship. And it, it does seem like Zuckerberg's taking a page this very week, maybe even yesterday when we're taping this over, uh, from Trump's playbook, which has never apologized, go on the offensive, attack the messenger, which is what they're doing with the Facebook whistleblower today. So what do you think the impact Thiel had on Zuckerberg is? Obviously Thiel had a big impact on Sean Parker, a friend of mine. Um, yeah. Who obviously had a big impact on, uh, Zuck. Do you think Zuck is actually a Republican? Do you think he actually voted for Trump? Do you think he's more aligned with Trump than say Hillary?

SPEAKER_90: I think that, um, okay.

SPEAKER_122: So I don't, I think that Zuck's politics are pretty hard to parse.

SPEAKER_65: I would guess that, you know, um, his politics seem to be, uh, Facebook, uh, it's like, uh, Facebook is his political view. Um, share price. But I do think, um, but I do think that Peter has had a really important influence on him. I mean, I think the business influence is very clear, right? Like you can see the ways and Zuckerberg has talked about this, the ways in which kind of Thiel's, um, view of building startups had an impact on Facebook. And I think you see in the kind of Facebook, like move fast, break things like that, that spirit, I think comes to some extent from the, the PayPal mafia. I think you could even, you're probably going to think this is a little crazy, but I think it's not like, I think you can draw a line by some of these, from some of these provocateurs that Peter has been around to Zuckerberg. I mean, Zuckerberg is in his own way, not all that different from like, you know, Keith Raboy or something like he's, he's like sticking it in the eye of Harvard. Remember, you know, he was, he was fighting with Harvard over this, um, you know, whatever the precursor. Hot or not, basically. Yeah, yeah, the Facebook precursor. And like, he's totally like another one of these kind of like, you know, bad boys, right? Like, and I, and I think.

SPEAKER_33: I'm CEO bitch is a card. 100%.

SPEAKER_65: Yeah. So I think there's that. And I think, um, it's pretty clear that, okay. So maybe not pretty clear. It's like clear as mud that he has somewhat, has some pretty libertarian views. I mean, we've seen some of them come out and basically in terms of the way he thinks about, um, you know, speech and like, like, what is Facebook's responsibility to society? I mean, it seems like he basically thinks that the answer is none, um, or, or something close to none, um, and that it's important to, to take that position in order to maintain freedom or, or, or something, something along those lines. I think that is, um, probably has a lot to do with Peter's influence. Um, uh, and, um, as you said, I think that Peter played a really important role kind of in the Trump era with, with Zuckerberg. So, um, Zuckerberg, if you go back to 2016, right, he was getting hit really hard over this like kind of mini, this is like a really stupid story, but like, it was a big deal at the time, the trending topics thing where they had like created this little sidebar and no one was even looking at it. Right. But like it, but, but it got spun up into a big to do in conservative media. Um, and conservative media, I think rightly since an opportunity here to like, you know, in kind of like the classic sort of Breitbart, like let's, let's, let's try to move the Overton window kind of thing to, to sort of after Facebook and say that they were, um, going, you know, discriminating its conservatives and, um, that became like politically very salient. Um, you're, you know, and, and that would have been really bad for Mark Zuckerberg because Donald Trump, as we know, is like not averse to like sort of meddling in the business world to, you know, you know, to, to, he likes to shake cages, swing a bat. Exactly.

SPEAKER_41: He takes everything personal.

SPEAKER_65: And you know, there are people in, in Trump's world who are talking about some like very extreme things, um, with respect to tech. Peter helps arrange this kind of peace summit in 2016, where you had like Glenn Beck and a bunch of other well-known conservatives and they make peace that, you know, Zuckerberg says, Yeah, Zuckerberg says, I mean, it to be, it's, um, you know, it, it isn't the kind of far right, right?

SPEAKER_77: It's like mainstream, you know, like Glenn Beck is as far right as I think it may be.

SPEAKER_90: Yeah, Glenn Beck's a little wacky. He, I think maybe had Ben Shapiro there, which. No, um, but no Breitbart, um.

SPEAKER_52: No Breitbart, no Melo. Right. Who's that weird character with the beard you go into a bunch of details with, uh, Charles.

SPEAKER_186: No Charles Johnson.

SPEAKER_239: No Charles Johnson.

SPEAKER_83: I thought that was a very interesting part of this. We'll get to that in a second. But anyway, they do that summit, they kind of make peace and then they start showing up on the

SPEAKER_25: trending list and now they were on the trending list too much.

SPEAKER_186: Uh, yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_65: And so, um, there's this kind of, um, there's this, whatever, there's this kind of peace accord, um, where Zuckerberg kind of says, hey, you know, I'm for free speech. And you have like Glenn Beck does a, you know, post saying, you know, Facebook's okay, man. Um, and, uh, this is remember if Glenn Beck was like really going for like reconciliation at that, uh, during that, during that time. Or relevance. Uh, yeah. Okay. And, um, but, but, but so it, I think that helped. Um, and I think there was, and I think that probably influenced, you know, Facebook's reluctance in 2016 to really kind of figure out what was going on on its platform. I mean, you know, there, there are lots of other possible explanations. And I think, you know, with a company like Facebook, it's a mistake to like see any one, you know what I mean? It's probably like three or four different things at once. But I think they had, there, there was definitely political incentive to like let stuff go on on the, on the platform. And then I think, you know, going into 2020, like, I don't know who Zuck voted for, but I think he was way more afraid of the Democrats than he was afraid of Trump. Because Trump had been very good to Facebook for the most part, right? Facebook has been growing. Um, yeah, like Trump every now and then he gets on Twitter and says something obnoxious. But, but, um, Zuckerberg obviously has a good friend, uh, and, and board member who's in the kind of in the inner circle. And, um, and Trump hasn't really done anything to Facebook.

SPEAKER_25: Yeah, that's, that's where taking Trump seriously, not literally actually applies. He could say whatever he wants, but what is he actually doing to break up big tech? The only thing he really did was say, we're going to kick TikTok out. You better find a deal. And that set in motion, that whole Oracle, Microsoft, you know, we got to find a deal

SPEAKER_52: for TikTok. That actually was the only thing he did against tech that had teeth.

SPEAKER_65: I mean, Jeff Bezos would like to bring up a couple of things, but yeah, I mean,

SPEAKER_248: you know, there's a, I mean, did he actually, oh, the Jedi deal. Yeah.

SPEAKER_65: I mean, that was a big deal. I like again, disputed and, but, but I think some Amazon people would, would, uh, would beg to differ, but, uh, uh, and we probably come up with some other, other things. I mean, you know, there, I think in general, Google was more closely scrutinized, um, during the Trump years, then, um, it's still given a pass.

Chamath Palihapitiya: Apple gave him a huge pass.

SPEAKER_77: Yeah, yeah, yeah. It hadn't, uh, well, it seemed like maybe if Trump had been reelected, they were starting

SPEAKER_65: to build to, there was like cases built. I don't know, it seems like maybe there might've been some, something going that, that could've happened, um, if Trump hadn't been, uh, hadn't been reelected, but, um, or sorry, if, if Biden hadn't won the election, but, uh, but anyway, so I think it, I think, I think the association with, um, with, with Teal helped Zuckerberg. And I also think it helped Peter. You know, I mean, I think, I think being that power broker, um, between Zuckerberg and Trump, two of the most powerful people in the world is like a pretty good place to be. And it's pretty clear that they don't, that he and Mark Zuckerberg do not see eye to eye. Uh, and yet, um, you know, and yet he's still on the board. And I think the reason he's on the board is because he creates, um, you know, value for Mark Zuckerberg by being like the conservative on Facebook's board also would be a huge scandal. If, if Zuckerberg wanted to fire Peter Thiel, like, can you imagine like the cancellation,

SPEAKER_251: you know, I mean, it'd be a little prisoner's dilemma there.

SPEAKER_65: Um, and for Peter, I think, you know, I think I'm, I'm sure there is a combination of, there's probably some loyalty, right. Uh, you know, personal loyalty, even, even if he has, um, you know, even if he has mixed feelings about company, right. Like, you know, they, they do go way back. Um, and I also think like it's a, it's a pretty important position he has. I mean, he, he, very few people have any influence over Mark Zuckerberg and Peter has some.

SPEAKER_46: Cat Charles Johnson is an interesting one.

SPEAKER_18: Um, I actually had him on this podcast and I turned the episode off when I realized he was a white nationalist, uh, or a scumbag.

SPEAKER_83: Um, I had interviewed him cause he was doing a lot of interesting technical stuff. And I thought the we searcher was like newsworthy kind of moment. Um, not that I endorsing it, but I just thought on a journalistic basis, it's we, I'd be interested to hear this, uh, kids take on it. But then I saw him doing that white privilege sign and everything. And I was like, yeah, no, I'm turning that. I literally turned the episode off. Cause I was like, I just don't want to even give this kid any air. Uh, but from your book, Charles Johnson, an increasingly influential figure associated

SPEAKER_41: with members of the young alt right. The movement was at once troll is silly and dangerous, the extreme members of the movement flirted with racism, even Nazism, anything to break liberal outrage.

SPEAKER_07: Uh, and he seems to have had Peter's ear ear for a couple of years there. Um, who is this character? Is he important? Uh, does Peter still associate with him?

SPEAKER_171: Because he seemed to be a pretty dark character.

SPEAKER_254: So, yeah. Um, so Johnson, as you say, was this, uh, was one of these, you know, provocateurs.

SPEAKER_65: Um, he has, you know, pretty much moved away from, you know, he's, you know, renounced the alt right. Um, he says he's a Democrat now, um, says a Biden supporter. Um, I think he, yeah, yeah. Yeah. You maybe haven't gotten to that in the book, but it comes.

SPEAKER_122: Yeah. Um, uh, he, I think was somebody who was

SPEAKER_65: like a lot of these teal figures, right? Like, like very successful at kind of, you know, at these kind of crazy provocations. And I think, um, he was an entree to that world, to the, to the alt right movement, which like was very important, I think, and, and helped propel, um, uh, help propel Trump to, to office, um, and, and, you know, kind of grew out of, I would argue kind of grew out of the Ron Paul movement. And I think, you know, that's, that was the, the role that, that Johnson played, um, at least initially in, in, in Peter's world, you know, and I think, um, you know, he doesn't, Peter does not have like a traditional, like political shop. It's, it's changing. Right. But like, he doesn't, he doesn't have like a, you know, like a DC guy, beltway guy. Um, uh, but, uh, and so, so I think there was kind of an ad hoc approach. Um, and, you know, Peter has invested in a couple of Johnson's companies, uh, Clearview AI, which is an interesting, um, which is an interesting one because, you know, Clearview AI, uh, Facebook does not like Clearview AI, right?

SPEAKER_254: It's pretty weird, um, that a Facebook board member is an investor in, in this company.

SPEAKER_83: Clearview AI scraped every image of people off of Facebook, Instagram, whatever,

SPEAKER_18: put them into a database and then allows police and law enforcement to search for those individuals doing a reverse image search episode 1100 of this podcast.

SPEAKER_65: Johnson has a, has another company. Uh, it's a genetic, uh, genetics company. Uh, uh, he told me that Peter is an investor in that one as well, and that's a recent one. So, so they've continued to have, um, at least some contact, um, you know, in the, in the, in the last couple of years. Uh, but my sense is that they're, they're, they were more, they connected more over, you know, kind of the alt-right and the gawker stuff. Johnson was another, um, another person who felt aggrieved and maybe this, I, you didn't bring it up, but it may have been part of why you connected because, because the, because gawker had written this, these kind of like satirical, uh, post. They defecated on the floor, floor. And Johnson, you know, sued them and, and, um, and Johnson, as I talk about in the book, um, was involved in, in this campaign, uh, to go after gawker, including, um, helping to kind of round up, you know, a lot of these alt-right guys were involved in the gawker thing, right? Like, uh, Cernovich, um, they were, they were cheering on Peter, uh, and, and some of that

SPEAKER_83: was basically like surrogates and like amateur researchers is I think how I would describe them.

SPEAKER_52: They're on Twitter, you know, advocating for this. So they're creating S you know, some kind of groundswell amongst that constituent while trafficking and information they get in their DMS to kind of help be these like internet

SPEAKER_83: sleuths is, is how I would describe it. I think.

SPEAKER_65: Yeah, I mean, and, and I think like the whole, like the funding mechanism of the alt-right is, is not entirely clear. There's another Peter associate who was, who was pretty involved in the alt-right, this guy, Jeff Giese, um, who again, he's another one who has kind of, um, moved away from some

SPEAKER_58: of the, the, you know, whatever the, the sort of most extreme parts of the alt-right. Um, I, I think, uh, you know, the alt-right also post Trump, you know, it got a lot scarier than it was when, um, you know, during the election. Right. And I think, and I think, um, Peter, if he were going to defend himself, uh, would sort of say that basically, you know, he, he wasn't, he did not embrace like the, the worst parts

SPEAKER_65: of the alt-right. As I say in the book, he, you know, uh, of course, Richard Spencer, the, the, you know, neo-Nazi was involved in this movement. He tried to get a meeting with Peter. Peter did not meet with Richard Spencer. Right. So for what that's worth. There's a line, right? Yeah.

SPEAKER_83: He does not want to meet with an actual Nazi, but these folks would, yeah, they were adjacent.

SPEAKER_52: This is kind of how I described it at the beginning of the pod. And I think that's probably still accurate, which is, you know, Milo Yiannopoulos is next

SPEAKER_83: to Richard Spencer. Charles is next to Milo and then Peter's hanging out with Charles and maybe I think you mentioned, maybe he met with Milo Yiannopoulos once or something. Yeah.

SPEAKER_90: I think he met with Milo.

SPEAKER_65: Yes. Um, and he was definitely, you know, having dinners with people who were involved in the kind of, in this kind of like activist movement, both in terms of this sort of online, uh, Trump thing, but also, you know, some of the kind of a tech activism that was happening in conservative circles, you know, around James Damore. And, you know, we've seen, uh, any, anyway, I, I think there was a sort of a, um, a universe of kind of people and, and a movement that, that he was, you know, whatever at the margins on as a, as a sometimes, but most sometimes a patron, but mostly, you know, somebody who was, you know, just being encouraging or something like that.

SPEAKER_44: Peter sat with you for an hour for the book or something you mentioned.

SPEAKER_273: We met off the record. Yeah.

SPEAKER_44: Off the record while you were writing the book or. Yeah. Yes. Yes.

SPEAKER_188: And you had met him before that.

SPEAKER_65: Yeah. A couple of times. I mean, um, uh, like I said, in the intro, you know, he was, he's around every deal that like, I mean, I know you're pushing back a little bit on this characterization, but I do think he was around, um, you know, one way or another around a lot of the, you know, kind of important stuff that was happening.

SPEAKER_52: Um, you know, I, I think there's probably between our two positions or like the East coast position of his footprint here, you know, how I could understand the perception being larger than it actually seems because he's larger than life and his vocal. And then there's other people who are incredibly quiet and never, you don't even know their names because they've made it a secret who they are and they invest literally a hundred times

SPEAKER_83: as much money a year as he does. And there's a dozen people I could mention who put to get put to work a magnitude more than Peter in many, many more companies.

SPEAKER_52: So nobody here is really scared of him, but I think that that's a New York perception or a media perception largely. And the people you mentioned who might be scared of him, but yeah, the teal fellows or the people in his orbit, he might have an undue influence on. So I could see that actually. Um, it's just maybe not as much in the day-to-day of Silicon Valley where a founder is, is working on stuff, but to that point, um, how did he feel about you writing the book?

SPEAKER_07: I know he didn't participate in the fact-checking.

SPEAKER_204: Well, I don't want to share, yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_65: I don't want to share any details from, uh, whatever, from the, from the off the record conversation. Um, my sense is, and well, I'll say, what's the point, wait, let me just ask this.

SPEAKER_90: What's the point of the off the record for you just to make sure you're not completely off base and there's something- Oh, no. I mean, I wanted him to talk to me on the record. What does the off the record do for you?

SPEAKER_253: I know, but what does the off the record do for you? It's just that if you can get it, you take it as a journalist?

SPEAKER_280: Yeah. I mean, so, well-

SPEAKER_253: And what do you hope to accomplish in an off the record discussion?

SPEAKER_65: Well, I mean, number one, right? Like I wanted him and like, still, right? Like, I still want him to talk to me or other journalists, like on the record. Like, I think, I think that he's, um, you know, he's, he's, he, he's very secretive, of course. And, you know, he doesn't do that many interviews when he does do interviews. They're often with very friendly, um, friendly people, you know, people who are- Yeah, he's done my part.

SPEAKER_283: Yeah.

SPEAKER_80: Ideologically, uh, anyway, um, he-

SPEAKER_25: I'm ideologically the opposite, but yeah, sure. I understand what you're saying. He would do most favored nation. Yeah, yeah, exactly.

SPEAKER_65: You know, and, and, and I think, whatever, that's his prerogative as a, uh, as a rich guy who can command an audience. Um, uh, but I was trying, of course, was trying to, you know, I want to talk to him on the record. I think, you know, it's, it's always, first of all, it's, it's really good practice, like, journalistically. And I think, like, you, you definitely want to hear from the person. Um, and so, so part of the reason to have an off the record conversation is, is to, is to make the case for that in person and to explain- Oh, I got it. To make, to explain, you know, here's what I want to do. Here's what I think. Um, and you can learn, you learn stuff in that meeting, right? Because like, you're able to ask questions. Um, you know, I, I, I think, um, and there's also always a possibility, right, that they come back and say, actually, you know, that was such a great conversation, uh, Max, that, you know, I'd love to put it on the record. Um, but, uh, but I just thought, you know, I, I just think like, you know, it's, it's, it's also very good to like, just meet somebody face to face. Like you learn, you know, you learn something about them. Maybe you don't learn everything, but like you learn more than you would if you didn't go to the meeting. Um, so, so I would always take the meeting, um, and, you know, uh, and, and, and of course, I was disappointed that he didn't want to talk to me on the record. But I, you know, I understand and, and I knew, you know, from the beginning that, you know, that it was kind of a toss up and, um, and, you know, had, as you said, at the end of the process sent, um, had a, had a long, uh, sort of back and forth with his, uh, you know, PR guy where I presented like all the fact checking questions, you know, very long list. And, uh, yeah, he said he didn't, um, he didn't comment. Um, and, uh, I think, I think that's cool. Uh, I feel like, you know, in some ways, uh, of course, I wish he'd talked to me and there's, there are questions I really want him to answer. I hope someone will get him to answer, even if they're not me. Um, but I also think that like, he's got, he's got his platforms. And, um, if you want to know what Peter thinks, like, you can buy his book. It's a really good book, zero to one, and you can watch his speeches and, and, and I did. And, you know, that, that's, that of course informed the book. Like asking someone a direct question is not necessarily the best way to learn, learn something. I mean, if you ask somebody like, how do you actually get stuff done or something like that? You know, sometimes some people are very good at like, uh, articulating an answer, but other people aren't, especially people who are kind of introverted, um, you know, kind of like Peter. So, so I, I feel like, you know, I don't think it's not like, I think the book is better for, um, for not, you know, having him on the record. I wish he was on the record, but I also think, you know, it's a different story. And it's a story that I still think is valuable.

SPEAKER_46: How do you deal with just, uh, author to author? How do you deal with people wanting to be off the record, um, and then knowing that what they're

SPEAKER_18: telling you is accurate and not an axe to grind?

SPEAKER_34: Because somebody like Peter obviously has a lot of axe grinders out there since he's so polarizing. Yeah.

SPEAKER_254: I mean, you have to, you have to do it in the, in, in, in the way you would do it in a normal

SPEAKER_65: situation, which is, uh, look for corroboration, um, explore motivations. People often, um, take notes or, or, you know, have, have nowadays, right? They have text correspondence and things like that. So, so, you know, often there are ways that you can, um, you can corroborate people's memories and, and you can corroborate people's memories by, um, by talking to other people. So it's the same. I mean, you know, it's, it obviously involves a lot of human judgment the same way if you were just in a private capacity, like talking to three different people and, um, and trying to figure out, okay, well, what, what actually happened? Hmm.

SPEAKER_293: Uh, you're a fan of his? Do you think he's a good person?

SPEAKER_165: Well, I tried to not, because a lot of people, uh, you know, feel the book's gotten, you know, I should say a lot of people, a lot of the reviews, um, or, you know, some of the feedback has been, um, you've got an ax to grind.

SPEAKER_23: I don't know that I buy that necessarily. The, the two things I felt were weird in the book were the six or seven mentions of white supremacy from his childhood all the way up to the people he's associating with.

SPEAKER_83: And then you're constantly mentioning young boys who are attractive or young men, I should

SPEAKER_52: say, not boys, young men who are attractive, which I felt like you were insinuating, not pedophilia, but in a proclivity for, you know, of age young men is the way I read it, that you were trying to sort of, that you were trying to insinuate something with that, that he's trying to surround himself with good looking men. And you said he did have, want to have good looking men around you, but for me, for a different reason, like he wants the iconoclastic outspoken ones. But, um, are you, do you consider him like a force for evil in the world? And you don't like him?

SPEAKER_299: Do you feel he's just a fascinating character? I'm curious if you, uh, have an ax to grind. Do you have an ax to grind?

SPEAKER_300: I guess it would be the way I would say it as blatantly as possible.

SPEAKER_209: No, uh, you know, first of all, okay. I want to push back a couple of things. Number one, uh, book's gotten a lot of great reviews. Uh, yes. From media people in the, on the East coast to. Yeah. The enemy.

SPEAKER_308: I know I got it.

SPEAKER_309: Gawker. Okay. Who hate that what he did to Gawker.

SPEAKER_209: You know, there are a lot of Amazon reviews that are like, you know, the, the, uh, subject is like cry more. And the only comment is beta journalist or something like that. And it's like seven people found this helpful.

SPEAKER_310: You're like, okay, well, the reviews on Amazon are a little bit, that's why I'm asking you

SPEAKER_299: personally, like, do you have an ax to grind? So you can say, I'm giving you that opportunity to say, no, I don't have an ax to grind. Yeah.

SPEAKER_65: So I don't. And, and I, I went into this, a lot of people say like, well, do you like him or not? And like, I've tried to withhold judgment because, um, I want. What I wanted to do in the book is cut through the mythology, right? There's a lot of people who see him as this like, Ayn Randian superhero. There's a lot of people who see him as this like evil right wing, um, billionaire who's, you know, whatever. And I think like the, there are, there's truth in both of those stories. And I think, um, but both of those stories are really incomplete and they, they not only sell Peter short, but they sell everybody involved short. I don't think it's like a really great way to, I think people should be more, should think critically even about their heroes. And I also think people should look at even people they consider villains with empathy. And, and there are aspects of Peter's worldview that I find deeply that disturbing. What's the most disturbing one? Uh, I think his views on democracy are the one thing that I would like to have. Like if I had an interview with him, like, that's what I would want to ask him about.

SPEAKER_83: He kind of believes democracy doesn't work, right? And that authoritarian or a benevolent dictator is a better approach.

SPEAKER_65: Right. And that's the thing. So you, you talked a lot about white supremacy. Um, and I, I do think it's, it's worth pointing out that he has had some associations with some people who've made problematic statements and things like that. But I think he's, what he's really is, is like a techno supremacist, right? Where like it's this idea that, you know, the world would just be better if it were run by like some kind of like CEO king.

SPEAKER_52: Um, and capitalists basically like founders. It's kind of Anne Randian, right? It's kind of objective. It's like, yeah. And let's let the builders build and then let everybody else stay out of the way.

SPEAKER_322: Yeah.

David Friedberg: And this is where, I mean, I don't disagree with that. I don't disagree with your assessment of that. I do disagree with that.

SPEAKER_265: Yeah.

SPEAKER_65: Um, and, and like, you know, one of these characters you haven't brought up, brought him up, but one of these characters has kind of dabbled in white supremacy, who I think is one of the more disturbing of Peter's associations, this guy, um, Curtis Yarvin, who is, um, you know, he's started a company that Peter was an investor in, a Teal fellow co-founded this company. Um, you know, he has dabbled very close to the edges of, you know, of some really dark stuff. And, you know, he thinks that we should replace our democracy with an American Caesar. And that is, that, that, that idea is taking off, um, in a lot of circles, a lot of circles where Peter runs, um, a lot of people that he is, you know, close to are pushing that idea. And that idea, I think is really worthy of interrogation. And, and like, personally, I do not like it. Um, I believe in the constitution.

SPEAKER_224: I'm going to go with you that I'm a fan of democracy as well.

SPEAKER_53: And if you dovetail it with the Trump presidency, um, you, many would argue that that was, you know, he was acting autocratic or authoritarian at times.

SPEAKER_52: And the fact that during the January 6th, uh, insurrection or protest, whatever you, however you want to frame it, um, he was literally trying to overturn an election. So there's a straight line for you. Teal backs Trump. Trump loves Teal. Trump did not want to leave office after losing the election.

SPEAKER_106: I mean, it's not so far fetched what you're saying.

SPEAKER_65: Well, and so, so like, and to me, that is an important question to ask because I think like Peter has had a big influence in lots of other ways, right? Like, I, I think there's a, there's a really important business story. This is kind of a business book mostly. Um, and, but, but, but the, but the potential, it's a little, it's a little worrying when you look at somebody like Mark Zuckerberg, who has, I think, you know, more power than almost any other human being in human history. He's been really influenced, um, by, by Peter in, in business respects. Um, I, I think in some political respects, and I think it's worth asking like, do you believe in democracy, Mark Zuckerberg? Do you believe in democracy, Peter Thiel? Because, um, those people, because, because they're making important decisions. And, and I think it's possible, you know, whatever, I think, I think it's worth knowing the answers to the question. I think it's worth asking those questions in a critical way. And I think one way to like, ask them in a smart way is to try to be, like I said, to try to just like, try to accept the things that are good about somebody and be clear right about the things that, that you don't like.

SPEAKER_83: Yeah. The, uh, the white nationalist associations, um, you know, if you're going to be part of that alt-right, they seem to have, it seems like the precursor to the alt-right was the tea party.

SPEAKER_52: And then you had on this other side, white supremacists who kind of joined the alt-right.

SPEAKER_83: And it's some kind of weird amalgamation of people who are conservative and upset with society

SPEAKER_18: in some way, um, whether they're incels or Nazis or whatever, and unique brand of scumbags.

SPEAKER_65: I don't want to keep coming back to this. Um, but, um, but you know, the, on the white nationalist thing, I don't think Peter's a white nationalist, but I think he saw some of them as, as useful. And I think, you know, you gotta, like, there's a choice there. And I'm not sure that's a choice that, that I, that I agree with.

SPEAKER_52: Well, I mean, to his credit, he wouldn't meet with the people who were known. Right. And then I think one of the things that was interesting during this period, because I had known Milo Yiannopoulos from the blogging days in the 2000s. He had copied what we did at Weblogs Inc. and what P, what Denton did at Gawker and created his own like blog network. And he was known as being like a cheeky, you know, flamboyant, gay columnist. I think he had worked at the Guardian or the Times of London or something. I can't remember which one. And he was legit. Like he was a legitimate, if not quirky, you know, thing, uh, the columnist, uh, provocateur, of course. And then he just went straight grip. I think this was all like some giant grift where they just started making so much money and, you know, these unknown rich alt-right people were sending money to them, Bitcoin to them, whatever.

SPEAKER_83: I heard Charles, that guy, Charles Johnson just made tens of millions on Bitcoin or something, or 10 million on Bitcoin was that somebody told me I bought it early.

SPEAKER_52: But I think they, like watching Milo Yiannopoulos, I was going to have him on the podcast. He was like, Oh, Hey, J Cal, I knew you from whatever. And I was like, yeah, he's like, Oh, I'm doing town. I'm doing this new thing. And I was like, okay. And then I was like, Whoa, whoa, whoa. Like what, what is this guy doing? Like he is way out there now. And so it was almost like that Trump presidency pre-election alt-right moment uncovered and

SPEAKER_07: revealed who was actually, you know, part of this.

SPEAKER_254: Yeah. I mean, I think so, but I think it's important to say that a lot of this stuff is still going

SPEAKER_65: on while like the, the, um, you know, the, the sort of alt-right as we understood it, you know, in 2015, 2016 is basically gone. Um, but there is this authoritarian movement that is very important and, um, and that, you know, you hear, and that is represented, you know, on Fox news and in some of the most, um, I mean, I don't want to say like the, the, it's like in the upper echelons of conservative media and, and, and there is like, it's not, it's not really at the fringe of the Republican party anymore. It's, it's pretty much the center of the Republican party. And, um, Peter, I think is making a play to be that the patron to that, to that movement. Um, and maybe that's because, um, it's like an opportunity or something like that, but, um, but you know, he's like, he's like going to be a major, he is already, you know, a major donor, uh, uh, for 2022. Um, and, um, I think he's seen within that world as, you know, as one of a handful of, of rich guys who could be, you know, potential donor, basically like, uh, Koch brothers, the way the Koch brothers, um, kind of, uh, had like served as, as patrons to, and, and it sort of took over, um, the Republican party, uh, you know, decades ago. And, and, and you had this like industrial company industries, um, and this kind of, uh, political project, uh, that, that the free markets, libertarian stuff that, that, that really changed the course of the Republican party and, and, and helped kind of remake the modern GOP. I think Peter is doing something kind of similar, um, with this sort of Trumpist, uh, Republican party where you have this post-industrial, it's not a post-industrial company, right? But like, he's a post-industrial guy. He's got, you know, investments in tech companies. Yeah. And he's, you know, um, pushing, you know, The Hillbilly Elegy guy is running, right? Absolutely. Yeah. With 10, 10 million bucks from, uh, Peter behind him and Blake Masters, who's, you know, been one of Peter's like right-hand guys is running for Senate in Arizona. Yeah. With another 10 million bucks. And, and those candidacies are, um, you know, they're, they're, they're, they're running in the Trump lane and, and who knows, maybe, you know, maybe, maybe they're going to moderate or, and, and it's all totally unclear whether they're actually going to win because like, I think there's some question about whether JD Vance really appeals to like regular people, or it's just somebody that like is good at getting elites, you know, spun up. Uh, but you know, they, they, it's, it could, they could have a lot of power in the Senate, uh, after 2022, especially if, um, if Republicans retake the Senate. Yeah.

SPEAKER_46: I thought the, uh, also interesting in your book was Peter's sort of thoughts on immigration.

SPEAKER_54: Um, I thought they were more severe than they actually were. I mean, he was not for closed borders.

SPEAKER_52: He was for the point-based system that Canada, Australia, and a number of other very reasonable countries go by, which is, Hey, if you're got a PhD native speaker, whatever you could bring to the system, that would be positive. We score up a certain number of points to bring you in. Um, so do you think he's xenophobic or as rational as Canada and Australia about immigration?

SPEAKER_254: Uh, I think that his positions on immigration are very far outside of the American mainstream.

SPEAKER_65: Um, I, I don't know where that comes from necessarily. Um, but I think it's, it's pretty far outside the mainstream. He's given, um, you know, money to this group, Numbers USA. Um, you know, Numbers USA is, is it's pretty far out there. You know, they're, they're, they're, they're in favor of getting rid of, you know, most categories of, of immigration and, and kind of just focusing on, um, you know, on immigration as a way to like,

SPEAKER_58: you know, basically populate, uh, tech companies with, uh, kind of like, like workers who are not paid very well and are, you know.

SPEAKER_46: Well, that was actually the, yeah, the H1B visas were a scam for it companies to get, um,

SPEAKER_52: they were scammed for it companies to get Indian, uh, it workers to come to the U S. And then if they don't do exactly the amount of overtime and. You know, whatever their bosses tell them, uh, they work for half as much twice as long. And if they get fired, they have 30 days to find a new job or leave the country and they have families.

SPEAKER_04: So you think about it's basically this modern day indentured servitude in probably about half the cases and the other half it's a legitimately somebody with unique skills, right?

SPEAKER_65: So, um, you know, and I think there, there are all kinds of ways you do the points thing, right? The points thing could be done in a very liberal way, right? Where, where, where it's, you know, you're not actually, um, you're not, you're not shutting out a lot of people, um, who we currently are, are letting in. Um, and then there's, there are ways that you can do it that are, that are sort of much more strict.

SPEAKER_90: Um, what I can tell you. Kind of the standard. I mean, the UK, New Zealand, Australia, Canada all do it this way, but you're right. The devil's in the details, right?

SPEAKER_65: Like, well, and, and I would also argue like, uh, you know, I'm an American. I mean, I, I think, um, I think the American system of immigration, um, it has a lot, it's, you know, it's different than, than those systems. And, and I think there are a lot of people who would argue it's one of the things that makes us, you know, who we are. And, and so, so I don't know, I mean, you know, drastically changing immigration policy in a way, you know, I mean, Peter is more hawkish on immigration, I think, than like what Donald Trump did. Wow. I mean, he's, he's further to the right. Yeah. Um, well, what did Donald, I mean, Donald Trump didn't do all that much. Um, so.

SPEAKER_343: Yeah, no, again, it's back to Donald Trump. Yeah. Saying a bunch of things and then not doing stuff.

SPEAKER_65: I mean, I think he's further to the right than like your average Republican on immigration. Now, what he would probably say and what somebody's defending him would say is like, you know, the Republican party has been sort of like totally taken over by the global, you know, there would be, there's a response to that. But, um, I think he's, you know, he's in the kind of like Bannon, you know, hard right faction of, of the Republican party on immigration, the kind of right populist thing, which is,

SPEAKER_346: because in the book, you say he was advocating for the point system.

SPEAKER_65: In that, yes, in that meeting with, uh, you know, with all the, with all the tech CEOs.

Chamath Palihapitiya: Um, that's when, you know, but you're saying he might have another position, which is more hardcore.

SPEAKER_65: Well, I mean, I, like I said, I think there's all kinds of different ways to implement that point system and, and, you know, there's a way to do it that feels like it's continued. It's like not that different from our current one and one that is much more extreme. And I would say, you know, he's probably would lean to a, you know, more, more of an overhaul. Um, and, you know, as I, I made the point in that, in that, um, I mean, I think there's a lot of hypocrisy on immigration in tech, you know, uh, a lot of companies were, um, kind of making these public statements about how, you know, there were all immigrants and, you know, making these public statements of opposition to Donald Trump and they got in that meeting with Peter and Donald Trump and they weren't, you know, they weren't, they weren't making opposing anything, right? They just, they were mostly just trying to make sure H1B would be intact, you know, and, um,

SPEAKER_25: and not losing half of their customer base. I mean, that was really the fear here was if you were, uh, Zuckerberg, if you were Google,

SPEAKER_83: if you were Tim Cook, the, the real abject fear was Trump has divided the country so much. Are we going to lose all the Republicans?

SPEAKER_52: You know, are they not going to want to use iPhones? Are they going to start a Republicans don't use iPhones? Are they going to do Republicans don't use Facebook? That was the fear. I mean, I think it's the, the capitalists out here who are in charge of these companies are thinking about the share price and not alienating any customers, which is how the NBA and Disney

SPEAKER_83: look at it too, by the way, like we don't want to lose the Chinese customer base by criticizing them. We don't want to lose Republicans in the United States by criticizing Trump.

SPEAKER_65: But I'll, I'll, I'll just share one more anecdote. I mean, you know, this is in the book, but, um, you know, Peter supported Ron Paul in 2012, right?

Chamath Palihapitiya: And that was very interesting. Yeah. Yeah. And the libertarian was a great part of the book, by the way, because that was,

SPEAKER_353: nobody really knows that stuff.

SPEAKER_209: Yeah. It's really fun. Cause like, first of all, the Paul people are like really excited.

SPEAKER_77: And then like, and they were kind of disappointed because, cause like, although Peter, I think, you know, liked things about Paul, like, I don't think he was quite the doctrinaire, you know, Paulite that they had hoped for. Anyway, after, um, after 2012, right in the, in the Ron Paul world, there was like a thought

SPEAKER_65: that, okay, Rand is going to be the next, um, you know, the next guy in this movement. And Peter is going to be our big backer. He was the, you know, really the only rich guy who had supported Paul. Um, and as I report in the book, you know, Peter gets off the bus, there's other stuff going on in Paul world, but, but the main thing that happened outside of Paul world is, is Rand Paul gave a big speech where he basically broke with the kind of nativist wing of the Republican party. He articulated a, um, you know, something that was probably tonally a little bit closer to George W. Bush or something like that. He gave, he said, he said, you know, we needed, you know, sort of hawkish in policy, but he gave the speech and he'd spoken Spanish. It was seen, you know, in the, in the world of the right, as he went too far, you know, Breitbart was really mad about it. And that's when Pete Peter got off the, the Ron Paul bus. And, and it's possible that there was something else. Um, you know, maybe, maybe, maybe there were other, um, calculations going on with, with, with Peter and why he wouldn't, why wouldn't want to support, uh, Rand Paul. But, um, but you know, my reporting suggests that the, the, the immigration position, the softening on immigration was part of it. I mean, I think he's hawkish on immigration. Um, uh, a lot of the country is it's, you know, probably 25% of the country agrees with him.

SPEAKER_355: Yeah.

SPEAKER_90: Well, listen, congratulations on the book.

SPEAKER_83: It's a great read. Um, and I highly recommend people read it. Uh, even if you know, Peter, I think it's a good thing to read, to kind of see the, uh,

SPEAKER_253: full picture and, uh, I wish you great success with that. I hope you get the interview.

David Friedberg: Uh, I think I'd be very entertained to see the two of you, uh, talk and, uh,

SPEAKER_80: yeah, make it happen, man. Uh, well, anyway, thank you for having me. I'm not that like close to him, to be totally honest.

SPEAKER_25: I've probably been in the same room with him 25 times.

SPEAKER_54: I've probably had a conversation with him a dozen times maybe, but you know,

SPEAKER_07: like I would say significant conversations for an hour or something like that. Yeah.

SPEAKER_83: Um, and I know everybody around him, obviously, um, best friends with, you know, a couple of his, you know, PayPal folks.

SPEAKER_07: So this, you know, the stories, um, are very interesting, I think too. And I think I was like, sort of checking like, correct, correct, correct, correct.

SPEAKER_83: When I was going through your book of the early parts and then me towards the end,

SPEAKER_49: when you get into this, you know, Ron Paul stuff and Trump stuff, I think really interesting stuff.

SPEAKER_254: Well, thanks. And, uh, and thanks for having me. Thanks for asking, uh, you know, such insightful questions and, uh, yeah, hopefully hope we can do it again sometime. Yeah.

SPEAKER_48: All right. We'll see you all next time on this week in startups. Bye bye.