← 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.
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
- Window: 2021-06-18 → 2022-06-18 — first mention + 12-month horizon, then the window locks.
- The call: ▼ SHORT META (primary play). META fell 50.3% over the window → direction-adjusted R = +50.3% (the call made money).
- 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.
- Rule fired:
▶ HIT — R ≥ +10% AND α ≥ +5 ✓ (R 50.3, α 60.9)· PARTIAL — R ≥ +5% OR α ≥ 0· MISS — everything else
- 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
| expression | symbol | kind | relevance | rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▼ SHORT | META | stock | PRIMARY | the speech-utility argument is aimed squarely at Facebook's moderation of political speech |
| ▼ SHORT | GOOGL | stock | adjacent | YouTube takedowns (Bret Weinstein/ivermectin) are the episode's cited example of gatekeeper censorship |
Mention log
“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.”
“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”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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
⏳ decay drained -39.2 over the idea's life — that's time passing, attributed to no one
Score events
| episode | kind | Δ | after | note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |