← pool · child of The four big-tech monopolies get broken up by the end of the decade

🏛️ Big tech gets regulated as common carriers via a left-right deal

Rather than breakups, the political settlement lands on common-carrier status for platforms that control core infrastructure — the left gets access/competition rules, the right gets a ban on summary deplatforming, and moderation discretion is constrained.

0 CONVICTION
peaked 40.4 EMBER
EMBER
band · contested
▼ SHORT META
expression · bearish politics-market
HIT
outcome · R +50.3% · α +60.9%
2022-06-18
window closed
⚠ CONFLICTING IDEAS ON THE SAME TICKER — the board is arguing with itself; net it before trading (ticker view →)
GOOGL · Google wins consumer AI via distribution LONG WATCH 61.2 ← stronger than this idea (30.4)
GOOGL · Anthropic IPO (~Oct 2026) is attractively priced at $1.5-2T LONG WATCH 53.9 ← stronger than this idea (30.4)
GOOGL · Personal AI agents: Google's data moat wins the form factor LONG EMBER 29.3
META · Meta becomes America's open-source AI champion LONG EMBER 26.7
GOOGL · Frontier AI labs keep durable premium pricing (not commoditized) LONG EMBER 26.6
GOOGL · Own AWS, Azure and GCP and nothing else — the clouds capture the AI application dollars LONG EMBER 20.6
GOOGL · Independent frontier-model labs lose to hyperscaler capital LONG DORMANT 14.0
META · Independent frontier-model labs lose to hyperscaler capital LONG DORMANT 14.0
GOOGL · Willow's error-correction scaling puts encryption on a two-to-five-year clock LONG DORMANT 8.8
GOOGL · Meta's AI assistant takes ten points of search share from Google LONG DORMANT 7.4
META · Meta's AI assistant takes ten points of search share from Google LONG DORMANT 7.4

also touching these tickers, same direction: Blue cities ban or license-cap robotaxis 28 (GOOGL) · Tort floodgates open on social media 15 (GOOGL) · Tort floodgates open on social media 15 (META) · ChatGPT takes Google search share and the market starts pricing the decay 9 (GOOGL) · Narrow Section 230 carve-out unleashes a tort wave on social platforms 4 (META)

⚖ Why this verdict

fully deterministic — evaluate.py replays this from daily closes; nothing below is editable or hand-set

  1. Window: 2021-06-18 → 2022-06-18 — first mention + 12-month horizon, then the window locks.
  2. The call: ▼ SHORT META (primary play). META fell 50.3% over the window → direction-adjusted R = +50.3% (the call made money).
  3. Benchmark: holding SPY over the same window returned -10.6%α = +50.3 − (-10.6) = +60.9% — what this call made or lost against just owning the index. This is the number the verdict uses.
    Stock-selection read: +39.8% — did META move the predicted way relative to the market. The two only differ on a SHORT: this call beat the index outright.
  4. Rule fired:
    ▶ HIT — R ≥ +10% AND α ≥ +5 ✓ (R 50.3, α 60.9)
    · PARTIAL — R ≥ +5% OR α ≥ 0
    · MISS — everything else
  5. Credit: supporters of a HIT earn 1.0 each, opposers the inverse — this feeds the scoreboard weights. supported: Chamath, Sacks | opposed: Friedberg

Conviction timeline

bands: green ≥ 65 · watch ≥ 45 · ember ≥ 15

Plays vs SPY · % since first mention (2021-06-18)

Plays

expressionsymbolkindrelevancerationale
▼ SHORT METAstock PRIMARY the speech-utility argument is aimed squarely at Facebook's moderation of political speech
▼ SHORT GOOGLstock adjacent YouTube takedowns (Bret Weinstein/ivermectin) are the episode's cited example of gatekeeper censorship

Mention log

Sacks
Sacks politics-market w=0.97 · n=88 · E36 (2021-06-18) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 20:45 SUPPORT
“But I think the legit, I think the words you're going to hear a lot, okay, are common carrier. ... And so I think there is I think the left and the right here can cut a deal where they regulate these guys, these big tech companies as common carriers. I think that is what we're headed towards.”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market w=0.97 · n=88 · E64 (2022-01-22) · sentiment · strength 2 ▶ 28:56 SUPPORT
“these big tech companies, the FAANGs, they have way too much power in the marketplace. They are now gatekeepers over the internet. They control all these powerful platforms. And broadly speaking, it is time, I think, to basically have some limits on those powers, make sure they don't abuse it. I think she's also right that the traditional standard of consumer harm doesn't really capture that sort of concept of market power for these free ad-based services”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market w=0.97 · n=88 · E66 (2022-02-05) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 1:08:11 SUPPORT
“I think that politicians are using the threat of regulation to try and drive the speech policies they want on these social networks. That's what's really going on. ... Because the people in Washington are trying to coerce Facebook into controlling what they call misinformation, which is really just speech they don't like. And that is highly inappropriate.”
Friedberg
Friedberg politics-market w=0.84 · n=74 · E66 (2022-02-05) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 1:10:59 OPPOSE
“And in all these cases, from Google to YouTube to Twitter and now to Spotify, the idea of being just an access, a platform for access is proving to be wrong. All of them are de facto publishers. They ultimately have to make decisions about what they do and don't let on the platform. ... And now they're finding that there is no way to avoid being treated like a publisher. And a publisher has someone that's called an editor and an editor decides what is and isn't put on that publishing platform, as has always been the case in old media.”
Friedberg
Friedberg politics-market w=0.84 · n=74 · E75 (2022-04-09) · explicit_prediction · strength 3 ▶ 53:32 OPPOSE
“If they choose, like Pinterest and Twitter and YouTube and Facebook and Google, to change how their platform operates, Sacks, I actually think that's a commercial decision made by a private company. They should have the right to do that, but they're going to lose users over time.”
Sacks
Sacks politics-market w=0.97 · n=88 · E75 (2022-04-09) · explicit_prediction · strength 3 ▶ 55:50 SUPPORT
“if they take away your right to free speech on these platforms, if they censor you, if they de-platform you, you do not have a right to free speech in this country. That right needs to be protected.”
Chamath
Chamath politics-market w=1.02 · n=96 · E75 (2022-04-09) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 59:45 SUPPORT
“My thoughts have evolved before when he first got banned. I was really supportive of it. ... in general now, a much more free speech because I think it's much more fragile than I thought it was before. ... two years later, a much more on David's original camp now, which is we just need to establish this as a pillar of society and not deviate and find credible voices on both sides. ... But the minute you start cancelling stuff today, as I sit in 2022, what I would tell you is I think it's very, very bad because it's going in a really bad place.”

Who built this conviction

each voice's total force on the score — supports and opposes from every mention, weighted exactly as the replay applied them · share = % of all mention-driven movement

Sacks
Sacks w=0.97
4 scoring events · 65% of moves
+74.0 → net +74.0
Friedberg
Friedberg w=0.84
2 scoring events · 19% of moves
+0.0 / -22.1 → net -22.1
Chamath
Chamath w=1.02
1 scoring event · 16% of moves
+17.8 → net +17.8

⏳ decay drained -39.2 over the idea's life — that's time passing, attributed to no one

Score events

episodekindΔafternote
E36 2021-06-18 init +33.8 33.8 E36 born by Sacks (explicit_prediction x2) [w=0.97]
E37 2021-06-25 decay -1.4 32.5 E37 silent
E38 2021-07-03 decay -1.3 31.2 E38 silent
E39 2021-07-09 decay -1.2 29.9 E39 silent
E40 2021-07-16 decay -1.2 28.7 E40 silent
E41 2021-07-23 decay -1.1 27.6 E41 silent
E42 2021-07-30 decay -1.1 26.5 E42 silent
E43 2021-08-06 decay -1.1 25.4 E43 silent
E44 2021-08-28 decay -1.0 24.4 E44 silent
E45 2021-09-04 decay -1.0 23.4 E45 silent
E46 2021-09-14 decay -0.9 22.5 E46 silent
E47 2021-09-18 decay -0.9 21.6 E47 silent
E49 2021-10-02 decay -0.9 20.7 E49 silent
E50 2021-10-09 decay -0.8 19.9 E50 silent
E51 2021-10-16 decay -0.8 19.1 E51 silent
E52 2021-10-23 decay -0.8 18.3 E52 silent
E53 2021-10-30 decay -0.7 17.6 E53 silent
E54 2021-11-06 decay -0.7 16.9 E54 silent
E55 2021-11-13 decay -0.7 16.2 E55 silent
E56 2021-11-20 decay -0.6 15.6 E56 silent
E57 2021-12-04 decay -0.6 14.9 E57 silent
E58 2021-12-11 decay -0.6 14.3 E58 silent
E59 2021-12-17 decay -0.6 13.8 E59 silent
E60 2021-12-23 decay -0.6 13.2 E60 silent
E61 2021-12-29 decay -0.5 12.7 E61 silent
E62 2022-01-08 decay -0.5 12.2 E62 silent
E63 2022-01-15 decay -0.5 11.7 E63 silent
E64 2022-01-22 reinforce +12.8 24.5 E64 Sacks support x2 [w=0.97]
E65 2022-01-29 decay -1.0 23.5 E65 silent
E66 2022-02-05 reinforce +11.1 34.6 E66 Sacks support x2 [w=0.97]
E66 2022-02-05 oppose -10.1 24.5 E66 Friedberg opposes x2 [w=0.84]
E67 2022-02-12 decay -1.0 23.6 E67 silent
E68 2022-02-19 decay -0.9 22.6 E68 silent
E70 2022-02-24 decay -0.9 21.7 E70 silent
E71 2022-03-05 decay -0.9 20.8 E71 silent
E72 2022-03-19 decay -0.8 20.0 E72 silent
E73 2022-03-26 decay -0.8 19.2 E73 silent
E74 2022-04-01 decay -0.8 18.4 E74 silent
E75 2022-04-09 oppose -12.1 6.4 E75 Friedberg opposes x3 [w=0.84]
E75 2022-04-09 reinforce +16.3 22.7 E75 Sacks support x3 [w=0.97]
E75 2022-04-09 reinforce +17.8 40.4 E75 Chamath support x2 (new voice) [w=1.02]
E76 2022-04-16 decay -1.6 38.8 E76 silent
E77 2022-04-23 decay -1.6 37.2 E77 silent
E78 2022-04-30 decay -1.5 35.8 E78 silent
E79 2022-05-07 decay -1.4 34.3 E79 silent
E80 2022-05-13 decay -1.4 33.0 E80 silent
E81 2022-05-23 decay -1.3 31.6 E81 silent
E82 2022-05-24 decay -1.3 30.4 E82 silent