-1.5
net board stance
what this means
4.96
-2.6% · close 2026-11-06
-15% / -7% / -38%
1m / 3m / 12m
-65%
vs SPY since 2025-08-01
20%
of 52w range · -45.4% off high
0/2
hit rate as primary · vs SPY -23
Where All-In Alpha stands — 1 live idea
| idea | call | play | conviction | contributes | moved yet? | scored in |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🏛️ Narrow Section 230 carve-out unleashes a tort wave on social platforms POD DISAGREES | ▼ SHORT | adjacent ×0.5 | 3.0 | -1.5 | — | 87d |
Where the winds are blowing
NET BOARD STANCE, LAST 60 EPISODES —
rising = the besties are building this position, falling = abandoning it. From the
conviction ledger; an idea counts from birth until its window closes. Dots mark episodes
where this ticker's ideas were actually mentioned; a dashed stretch is silence.
Last mention E219 · silent for 76 episodes.
PRICE VS SPY OVER THE SAME WINDOW, % — did the
talk lead the tape or follow it?
Who's pushing which way
each voice's net push ON THIS TICKER — their most recent stance per idea × that idea's direction ON THIS TICKER × strength, so supporting a bearish idea pushes down, unless this ticker is listed as the other side of it. Not conviction (that lives on the idea); this is direction of travel per person. what w= means
What resolves next
scoring dates for the live ideas holding this ticker — each one turns into a scored result on that date, whether it flatters anyone or not
Track record on SNAP
As a PRIMARY play the besties are 0 hit / 0 partial / 2 miss over 2 closed windows — credit 0.0, average vs SPY -23.1. Adjacent plays are listed but never scored.
The tape — what was actually said
every capture on any idea holding SNAP, newest first · quotes verbatim, timestamps deep-link into the episode
So they were losing comics to YouTube because it was more advantageous to put your comedy up on YouTube and build a following and then go sell tickets on the road... Now people are like, I don't even want to do the special because if I put it on YouTube, I can tour for years and really build a fan base. So I have this autonomy.
I do worry a lot about the precedent being set here with respect to foreign government actions on US companies in their local countries. Imagine the CCP tells Tesla they have to sell their Chinese operations and give 50% of the Chinese operations to the Chinese government because of their concerns about security
But at the end of the day, the president was very clear that it is completely and entirely worthless without his permit, and he wants to own 50% of this asset. Now, if you're a buyer of something, you're not going to pay $100 billion if you control whether it can exist or not. You're basically going to pay today's equivalent of one franc, which would be one dollar.
TH
Thomas Laffont
support ×2
▲ on
🏛️ TikTok gets banned or force-divested and US platforms take the attention
E212 · 2025-01-25
▶ 35:52
But I think you put it all together, you know, is 100 billion a reasonable scenario? ... And then could it be a trillion dollar asset, the way Trump has mentioned? I mean, in a world where Facebook's one and a half, right? And the penetration of TikTok in the US is 50% of what Metta is. I don't think it's unrealistic.
Seems like they're going to strike a deal. Chuck Schumer today is calling for a delay in the ban. I'm sure by the time this episode airs, something will have been worked out to create some space for them to get a deal done. But I think they want to get a deal done and keep TikTok active in the US. Seems like both the Dems and the Republicans are pushing for it.
if you think about the two biggest imports from China right now, it's fentanyl and TikTok. They want to make us addicted. They want to impact our society. They want to divide us. This is a massive psyops that's going on. It is a psyops, and it is a spyware, and it's been proven they spied on journalists. These are bad actors. It has to go.
So I do agree with Mark that we have to find a suitable home. And I think that we'll probably find one. And I think that it probably happens under the Trump presidency. And whoever gets their hands on it gets their hands on an incredible asset that they will be able to buy extremely cheaply. Because there is no way that there is a fair market value here deal for that asset.
And so I'm, the best outcome, I think, would be forced to divest and sell to another American company. But if that doesn't happen, I'm kind of nervous about a real backlash.
And when he loses tens of billions of dollars in personal net worth, will he make the same decisions? We'll see. But I can tell you, if Kamala Harris had been voted in, he would double down on censorship instead of taking this position. I think he is terrified of Trump and having his company broken up, and he's doing this strictly to appease Trump, which I think putting Dana White on the board is another signal.
I think he's going to have to deal with advertisers next, though. I mean, that's one thing that X doesn't have to deal with as much, and that's going to be the second problem he's going to have is not just the government, but do advertisers want to be next to some of the content that's about to appear.
But again, the lens that I would put on this is now the winds are blowing in a different direction. And I do think it's the value maximizing function... But I do think it's the smart value maximizing decision yet again for Facebook shareholders.
So if they'll do it to their own people, they would have no problem doing it to an adversary and, ask yourself, if the shareholders care about money, they would be willing to divest, right? No problem. They want to take the company public. So if you won't divest and get off the board as the CCP, it's because you see this as a valuable tool, right?
I said, you have to look at the Pegasus-like equivalent, infiltration of WhatsApp, having been done on TikTok... But there's probably 1,000 to 10,000 to 15,000 people. I do suspect that state actors are smart enough to figure out how to triangulate who.
You don't even have to have a conversation. In my view, TikTok is a threat to the national security of the United States.
I'm not sure the side hustle solves anything
Having a side hustle makes you anti-fragile
It's like a one in a million shot. It's just not a great thing to want to design your career around
57% of Gen Zers want to be influencers as their primary career now
I'm 100% certain that the CCP is using it, because people have tracked already journalists using it. So if they've already done it, it's 100%.
And I think that this idea that it's somehow a propaganda tool around programming our youth, I think that's a moral panic that's been exaggerated.
Looks like they gathered some reasonable data.
instead of shutting down 230 and causing chaos, to your point, Sacks, which I agree with that it would cause chaos and more censoring
I've long held the view that if you want to make online platforms liable as publishers for every piece of user-generated content, then you're going to have very little free speech left
I think it is a fig leaf to say that we've, there's a level of abstraction that should give us immunity. I think that these algorithms are taught to iteratively become better and better at hooking people on whatever is trending in that moment.
I want to see this thing banned immediately, or divest. I would prefer it be divested, because I think people love it.