12/9/25: Pro-Israel Billionaire CNN Takeover, Trump Bans State AI Regulation, Glenn Beck Interviews Washington

Krystal and Saagar discuss Pro-Israel billionaire attempting a CNN take over, Trump to ban state AI regulation, Glenn Beck interviews Washington.

 

 

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com

Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.

Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. We have an
amazing show for everybody today, but we have Crystal.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
I think Sager has proven that he was definitely outsagisted
to thank you.

Speaker 1 (00:41):
So still a little bit off, this little shaky I'm
doing my best here. I got the cough drops on
deck over here. Yes, thank you to Emily for filling
in for me. I know there were conspiracy theories. What
was it that I owed my bookie money or I
took too many bong rips? But no, I was I
was down bad and I was downsick no bongs from me.

Speaker 2 (01:00):
Well, we are glad to have you back, thank you,
and we have lots to get into. So we had
new details about this potential big media merger takeover situation.

Speaker 3 (01:08):
Jared Kushner is involved.

Speaker 2 (01:09):
Now we're getting details about how promises are being made
about changing CNN, so we'll take into all of that
potential implications. Trump is signing an executive order to ban
AI regulation at the state level, so that is great.
Young people are fleeing MAGA. We have a new entrant
as well into the Texas Senate Democratic primary. It's an
interesting one. We've got Jasmine Crocketts launch videos. We'll talk

(01:31):
about that shocking new pro Israel provisions hidden within the
National Defense Authorization Act, and a lot more details there. Besides,
Gavin Newsom has a new answer on apack. You can't
say that he doesn't learn as he goes along here,
so i'll play you that and the big Peers Morgan
versus Nick Fuent has two hour debate yesterday. We pulled

(01:52):
some of the moments that really stood out to us,
and we will react to all of that.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
Yes, more importantly, beyond entertainment value, what does it mean?
Why should we any of us pay attention. Thank you
to everybody who has been supporting us breakingpoints in dot com.
If you are able to become a premium subscriber with
AMA yesterday with some interesting news, so if you want
to be privy of that, you can Breakingpoints dot com.
And also we have a very special thank you to
our YouTube audience. We can go and put this up

(02:17):
here on the screen. We did officially hit one billion
views on this channel. I'm very proud of that one brilliant, surreal, surreal.
I mean I was telling you guys on the phone.
If you combine our time over at Rising, we're probably
over like a billion seven in terms of our work together,
which is mind boggling. It doesn't make any it doesn't

(02:37):
make a lot of sense, but you know, like to
be able to comprehend what that means. But that is
a testament, I think really to all of you for
supporting our work. I mean, it means the world. So
if you can hit subscribe on the YouTube channel, let's
hit two billion. I guess, yeah, let's hit two billion.

Speaker 3 (02:52):
Yeah, I mean it's yeah, it's.

Speaker 2 (02:53):
Quite an honor actually to have that level of sustained
engagement through all of the various periods that we've got
on through starting over at Rising with the you know,
the primary, the twenty twenty primary on the Democratic side,
and the election and COVID and Ukraine war here and Gaza,
just all of the different political phases. It means a
lot to us that you guys have trusted us through.

Speaker 1 (03:15):
All of that. So thank you absolutely for all your support,
even Spotify and you know on the podcast for people
who listened over this year. Seriously, thank you. One of
the important cool things so we've learned over the years
looking at our analytics. So we just got our Spotify wrapped.
Our biggest episode over last year was after Butler, right,
so people tuning in for the news, which really, I

(03:35):
mean really means a lot, right because it means people
are interested, they want to know what the hell is
going on? And then Election Day was our second most
obviously listened to. I mean, it makes sense, but it's
also it is a testament I think to all of you.
You know, it's not drama or any of that, like
any nonsense. It's like cold, hard, like what's actually going on.
Helped me make sense to the world.

Speaker 2 (03:54):
Wait, Butler was last year. This year wasn't it the
day after Charlie kirk assassination.

Speaker 1 (03:58):
Well, no, it was up about twenty twenty four, yeah, yeah,
oh twenty twenty five.

Speaker 2 (04:03):
Yeah, time fla.

Speaker 1 (04:07):
I think you're keeping this in.

Speaker 2 (04:09):
I think, yeah, we'll keep it in. I think he
told me that the day after the Charlie kurkis.

Speaker 1 (04:13):
Has You're right, was yeah, cold cold medicine does a
little bit of a number anyway, all right, all right,
I guess we'll keep it. We'll keep it, all right, Okay,
all right, So that means everything I say today, I
get a grain of solt for Okay, let's go, let's.

Speaker 3 (04:27):
Go to parents, better drop some hot takes, all right,
all right.

Speaker 1 (04:30):
I like it, all right, Let's get to Paramount. All right.
This is by far some of the biggest political news.
And the reason why is this is a perfect intersection,
in my opinion, of oligarchy, of markets, of Trump, of corruption,
of also though control over almost everything that we see
in mass media culture. So for all the talk we

(04:51):
just had about YouTube and one billion views over here
and a burgeoning independent, non connected media, the truth is
is that America is still largely ruled by a couple
of major media companies, and those media companies are in
a mass scramble now to consolidate and to control even
more of what you see. This is now coming to
head with this new merger war between Netflix making a

(05:14):
bid for Warner Brothers Discovery, which would give them Warner
Brothers Studio, would give them CNN control of a vast
array of streaming assets, and now Paramount led by David Ellison,
the zionist billionaire who is much more. I guess Trump
friendly is one way to put it, making a hostile
bid for the company. Here is Donald Trump being asked
specifically about who he would side with in this merger deal,

(05:35):
which coincidentally, in Paramount includes foreign Katari Saudi money as
well as Jared Kushner. Here is Donald Trump in his reaction.
Let's take a listen for.

Speaker 4 (05:46):
The Paramount bid for Warner Brothers. I don't know enough
about it.

Speaker 1 (05:49):
You spoke about Netflix last night saying you have concerns
about it.

Speaker 4 (05:53):
I know, I know the companies well, I know what
they're doing, but I have to see. I have to
see what percentage of market they have to see the
Netflix percentage of market, paramount, the percentage of I mean,
none of them are particularly great friends of mine. Yeah,
I just I want to I want to do what's right.
It's so very important to do what's.

Speaker 1 (06:14):
Supported by Kushner, mister president. Would that impact your.

Speaker 4 (06:18):
Decision paramount is?

Speaker 5 (06:20):
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (06:20):
I've never spoken.

Speaker 1 (06:22):
To him it, never spoken to him about it, even
though he is, of course not only the president's done
the law, actively working with the President on gos IT.

Speaker 2 (06:29):
I love him too, say and like, oh, none of
them are really particularly great friends of mine, dude, and
not only Ellison Netflix, they also you know, came and
met and trying to kiss the ring, like they know
how the game is played too.

Speaker 3 (06:42):
So they're all sucking up to Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (06:44):
Togay, and we should, I guess explain Why does Trump
even matter in any of this? Just because any merger
has to be approved by the United States government at
a scale of this size. I mean, it's not just
you know, a couple of day It's not like two
small local businesses combining. We're talking about a vast array
of multimedia assets which no one really ever believed would
be consolidated into a single company. It's hugely consequential business wise,

(07:07):
but I really think culture wise and that's why we
have to pay so much attention to all of this.
Let's go to the next part here exactly and explain
some of the foreign money that's behind this deal. Can
we put the next element on the screen. So Paramount's
bid for WBB is actually backed in part by some
twenty four billion dollars from Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds,
of billion dollars from China's ten Cent, if you're not familiar,

(07:30):
one of the largest media companies in all of China,
and then you also have Jared Kushner's private equity firm.
Now you may ask, because what are they going to
get from this? Go to the next part please, just
so I can explain a little bit. They say that
the financing sources are eleven point eight billion combined from
the Ellison family, an aggregate twenty four billion from sovereign
wealth funds of the Golf and a billion from ten Cent,

(07:51):
and commitments from Redbird Capital Partners and Affinity Partners. Now,
the thing is is that all of these partners have
said that they are prepared to execute agreement which would
give them equity but not give them board or voting
membership seats. Now you may ask then, well, what is
in it for them? Now, this is the same strategy
of Saudi Arabian foreign capital trying to roll up American culture.

(08:15):
So we've talked about the video game industry, EA sports
now for example, live golf, like what they're trying to do.
I mean it's classic not just sports watching. I would
really call it culture watching. At this point, if you
control enough of the media, it doesn't really matter whether
you have individual board memberships on what is going to
be done here and there. It's about having skin in
the game to the point where nobody can criticize you.

(08:36):
Is also remember the Riodd Comedy Festival. It's all part
of the same concerted strategy. You've got Saudi Arabia. Now
we're trying to roll up boxing, the UAE taking a
significant role in what is it in UFC. They're doing
all of this because they have endless amounts of cash
and they want to control what Americans' eyes are completely
focused on. They can't control YouTube, it's too dispersed right now.

(08:59):
YouTube and Google have its own problems. So what that
means is you take the rest of American culture and
you put it all together. So you have NFL Sports media.
You've got the video games and now you have potentially CNN.
You have Warner Brothers. I mean, Warner Brothers studio is
the probably the number one premier studio in the nation.
Like if you look at the Golden Globe nominations, some

(09:21):
of the best movies in the world all come from
Warner Brothers. HBO remains absolutely undefeated on premium content, although
Apple TV's currently giving them a little bit run for
their money, but they don't have the same number of
hit rates. So that's why it's so important. This is
about culture. This is about buying a stake in our culture.
And that is the bottom line for why Paramount who
is Look, I mean, it's not me. This isn't slanderous

(09:44):
inmavatory like they openly have said and it's been reported
in the past. They're very committed to promoting you know,
anti anti Semitism akay, kind of like Zionist pro Israel interest.
That's why they bought CBS News and that's some of
the things that's now coming out. Let's put a nine
up here on the screen. Huge news last night from
the Wall Street Journal. Quote behind Paramount's relentless campaign to

(10:05):
rule Warner Brothers and President Trump. Quote. During a December
visit to Washington, David Ellison offered assurances to the Trump
administration that if you bought Warner Brothers, he would make
sweeping changes to CNN, a common target of Trump's ire
and people familiar with the matter. Trump has told people
close to him he wants a new ownership of CNN
as well has changes to CNN programming. So this is
about media, this is about culture. This is all coming together,

(10:27):
and it's in one of the most naked, corrupt lobbying
campaigns I have ever seen here in the history of Washington,
between Netflix and Paramount.

Speaker 2 (10:34):
Every aspect of it is so incredibly dirty, and you know,
every piece of this would be a gigantic scandal in
any other administration. And obviously it is getting scrutiny both
from a business perspective and from a political perspective as well.
But you know, in a previous administration, it would have
been seen as inappropriate for the President to be directly

(10:54):
weighing in and picking and choosing, and for them to
be going and you know, paying homage to him and promise, oh,
We're going to make CNN give you the coverage that
you've always wanted. I mean, but with Trump, you just
accept it's part for the course that of course he's
going to be nakedly corrupt.

Speaker 3 (11:11):
Of course he's going to seize as much control.

Speaker 2 (11:13):
He's going to use this moment to seize as much
control of these media properties as he possibly can. Because
this is a man who genuinely, I think, in his heart,
believes it should be illegal to criticize him. I mean,
he has opened he has openly said things similar to that.

Speaker 3 (11:28):
He thinks that that is wrong.

Speaker 2 (11:29):
He has had increasing outbursts against reporters, especially female reporters,
for asking him questions. Quiet Piggy comes to minding at
another outburst yesterday, I called someone obnoxious, et cetera. He
thinks that is out of bounce. He thinks he should
be treated like a king and praised, and he loves
when these you know, sycophants come in and say, ask
a question, Oh, mister Trump, you know, tell me how

(11:50):
wonderful you are.

Speaker 3 (11:51):
That's what he wants the media to be. So there's
that aspect.

Speaker 2 (11:54):
Obviously, there's the personal entanglement with Jared Kushner being involved here,
not to mention being close with the Allison's in them
being overt Trump supporters, not to mention their ideological inclinations
towards Israel. Then you add in the foreign money, and
this is just absolutely insane. You know, in terms of
how Democrats are looking at this, it's a little bit scattered.

(12:15):
I mean, in my opinion, both of these deals are terrible,
you know, from an anti trust perspective, I think both
are extraordinarily bad for Hollywood. You know, the Netflix deal,
it like, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that
those executives are going to be impartial either they are
also according Trump, they are also going to want to
stay on his good side. And then you have this
streaming giant that is now merged with this, you know,

(12:38):
Hollywood Studio and very likely to completely undercut, you know,
any new theatrical releases, even though they're they're making noises.
Oh no, that wouldn't be the case anyway. It's an
anti competitive nightmare with that one, this one, same thing.
I mean, these giant media companies already have so much
consolidation in this space, so little choice, so little competition
in the space in a way that is only for

(13:00):
consumers and only bad for art as well. You know,
this is really like speaks to the state of the
American economy that so few industries are actually about like
creating the best product to appeal to people, or to
advance the art or whatever it is, whatever space that
they're into. It's all about this financial engineering and rigging
and trying to get monopoly power so that people have

(13:21):
no other choice. Both of these deals fall in that category.
But for Democrats, you know, some people like you know,
the near attandants of the world are looking through this
through a purely partisan lens. Don't have so much of
a power lens. They're saying, well, Netflix isn't as closely
aligned with Trump, so we like this one better, you know,
I mean, I guess you can make that judgment.

Speaker 3 (13:39):
But in reality, both of.

Speaker 2 (13:40):
These deals are really really bad for Hollywood, for the
movie industry, and that is why you've got you know,
the Writers Guild and others who are speaking out against
the Netflix deal as well as this poem.

Speaker 1 (13:51):
I'm glad you seem not We're going to talk about
this with the whole Jasmin Crockett thing, like not everything
should be about Trump, Like not everything is just about Trump.
Trump is a huge part of this story. But in
the aggregate, if you had told me Netflix wants to
buy WBD, I would be like, hell no, keep it
the hell away.

Speaker 3 (14:05):
Why it's bad?

Speaker 1 (14:06):
Yeah, Netflix, I remember I was telling you yesterday go
on the top ten shows for it's literal garbage, all right,
Like it's it's absolute slop. They might as well be
using AI to write the latest Yeah right, I know
you're a look. Every once in a while they crank
out something good, but for everyone's there's like My Secret Santa,
which is like some c tier rom com which would

(14:28):
never have even gone to theaters back in the mid
two thousands. And of course it's always number one. They
just pump this crap out there to keep people on
the Netflix algorithm continually just watching as much as they can.
Every once in a while they get a decent enough,
you know, show and or movie, but it's not it's
nothing compared to the original work going on at Warner

(14:50):
Brothers at HBO. And if they get their grubby fingers
into the HBO machine, I mean, it's it's a nightmare
for people who enjoy premium and good content. So let's
continue then on down the line, Let's go to the
next one.

Speaker 3 (15:03):
We're on our humanity.

Speaker 1 (15:05):
I totally agree. Well, it's about look America is, you
know what makes it great at this point, Like we
don't really make very much, you know, we have a
decent service based economy, and if you ask any president.
I had an interesting conversation once with an ex secretary
of State and I was like, in your opinion, what
is the most powerful export of the United States? And
he said movies, Like no question, And this wasn't me

(15:26):
prompting him. I was like, what do you think is
the literal most powerful export of the United States? He said,
movies and culture. It's television shows, right, It's a beacon
literally of culture across the globe. Now you know Netflix
and all that has flattened it a little bit, so
you have squid Game or Parasite, you know, movies like
that that pop up around the world. I'm all for that.
I think it's cool to see other countries. But by

(15:47):
and large, like we dominate this industry and it's a
global powerhouse of creativity, of individuality. It's inspiration, you know,
like for all the platitudes, but they're true, and so
to see it become overtly not just financial, but like
that's the Netflix model is keep people watching no matter
how shitty the content is. And that's just not how

(16:07):
it used to be. Like, if we want to save
the movies, which I do, I would love to save
box office, premium theater experience. Netflix is the very last
company that you would ever want to trust with that.
Now they claim that they're not going to but this
direct to streaming stuff like, be honest, it doesn't work
like for creating true like cultural masterpieces and tent pole events,

(16:27):
which I understand it's getting more difficult their business realities
in all of this, but it's not like this is
a failing company. At the same time, WBD to to
the point that they have issues, a lot of it
is because of their debt financing, not because they don't
actually make a lot of money. They still have good hits.
Let's go to the next element. Please just continue to

(16:49):
show everybody Saudi Arabia Guitar and Abu Dhabi saying they
want to put billions into Paramount and WBD again why
and they come to the same conclusion that I did,
is that owning pieces ten pole pieces of American culture,
even if you don't get a ton of oil of
voting or any of that is just effectively like a

(17:09):
way to buy cachet and access in the United States
of America. And the thing is is that behind all
of this, even if so if they the reason why
they're saying that they don't have voting on the board
is because if they did, it would actually trick. It
would trigger something called a Scifius violation. So Syphius is

(17:31):
about the foreign control. So you know, for those of
you who've ever attracked the whole like Chinese farmland thing,
how these Chinese companies going in and buy farmland or
they buy real estate here in the US. Like A
big criticism of the Obama administration is that they allowed
these through Sifius review. Now this is basically a backdoor
way to get around Syphius to make sure that there's

(17:52):
no foreign scrutiny on the deal. There is no reason
China's ten Cent should own even a sliver of the
largest media conglomerate in the United States. There's no reason
that Saudi Arabia, Katar, you know, any of these golf
nations again should own any of this. They have enough
control over our own culture. So this is again just
part of the w of the paramount strategy, which and

(18:14):
that's why even explaining it sounds crazy. You're like, wait,
so a pro Israel billionaire is uniting with the golf
Arab States to buy, you know, a movie studio. It's like, yeah, well,
because the golf Arab States don't really care that much
about Israel or the Palestinians. They make a lot of.

Speaker 3 (18:29):
Care because they're popular.

Speaker 1 (18:30):
They're exactly, but their governments don't care.

Speaker 2 (18:33):
They don't care, yeah, exactly, right right now. They would
be happy to normalize and do every business deal under
the sun. And you know they don't have any ethical
or moral qualms about any of it.

Speaker 3 (18:42):
No one should fool themselves.

Speaker 2 (18:43):
Otherwise they feel pressure from their populations to you know,
put in for vision, you have to make some noise
about a Palestinian state, et cetera for us to sign
onto these deals.

Speaker 3 (18:53):
But you know this, no, it makes perfect sense.

Speaker 1 (18:55):
Yes, exactly. All right, let's continue on and put some
more stuff on the screen. And so let's put a
five four example of what that will show you is
just the amount of properties here that would be controlled
by anybody who gets this. But also finally, in terms
of giving the game away, is David Allison, the CEO
of Paramount, who is openly talking about his relationship with

(19:19):
the president on this Let's take a listen. That's a
six guys from CNBC yesterday. Do you sense that he
is in your corner here?

Speaker 6 (19:26):
What I would say is, I'm incredibly grateful for the
relations that I have with the President, and I also
believe he believes in competition, and when you fundamentally look
at the marketplace, allowing the number one streaming service to
combine with the number three streaming service is anti competitive.

Speaker 1 (19:41):
Incredibly grateful for relations with the president. And the thing
is is that what David Ellison has been doing over
at CBS. Again, let's just look at this purely from
business a. CBS doing that much better? Have they done
anything remarkable under miss Weiss? Barry Weiss? What did she
do that great round table with Secretary I've never heard

(20:03):
from Condolliezeer Rice.

Speaker 3 (20:04):
Hillary Clinton.

Speaker 1 (20:06):
You know what I've been hurting for is more condoliezer
Rice and fucking Hillary Clinton content. Thank you Barry for
these groundbreaking discussion Or she's like, I want to promote
who was that guy who got into it with the
Tonahisi codes? Oh, yeah, I can never say, yeah this guy, yeah,
make a big pro Israel guy, right, and they're like, oh,
let's make him the new face of CBS News. Yeah.

(20:27):
Like that's all they care about, okay. And that's the
funny thing is even that. What Trump does is he
gives the game away because sixty Minutes recently just did
a interview with Marjorie Taylor Green. Let's put that one
up here on the screen. This is a long tirade
from Trump against Marjorie Taylor Green. And what you see
in here is he goes on this tirade, but he says,
my real problem with the show, however, wasn't the low

(20:50):
IQ trader. It was the new ownership of sixty minutes
paramount would allow a show like this to air. They
are no better than the old ownership who just paid
me millions of dollars since they bought it. Sixteen minutes
has actually gotten worse. Oh well, far things happen. I
demand a complete and a total apology. I mean, what
he's basically showing is that the mandate for all of
these people is you don't just have to be like

(21:12):
you know, you don't just have to suck up to him.
In private, you have to suck up to him. On
the air, you can't air anything that is remotely critical
or you're gonna get scrutiny. I mean this, this kind
of reminds me of the whole Jimmy Kimmel thing. We
can do this the easy way or the hard like
it's overt government pressure in terms of content, not in
terms of you know, what's good for the consumer, what's

(21:34):
good for America? Like, what's you know, does this thing
make any sense? You can make it a monopolistic argument
for Netflix, right, Hey, you know, everybody pays way too
much money for streaming is better for one company of stones.
I don't agree with that necessarily. I do think we
pay too much for streaming, but I don't think it's
a good thing, you know, broadly for culture. But you
can make that argument, that's a legitimate economic argument. But
they're not even making.

Speaker 2 (21:54):
That argument, right yeah, yeah, no, And okay, So I
think this is this is why the corporate ownership of
the press and the consolidation is such a problem. Because
Trump just comes out and says it, and it's very
direct about it. Right, And if you're David Ellison and
you want your deal to win out.

Speaker 1 (22:11):
What are you going to do?

Speaker 3 (22:13):
What are you going to tell Barry.

Speaker 2 (22:14):
Weiss in terms of her content choices over at CBS,
No more Trump criticism like, no, you can't have Marjorie
Taylor Green on, No, you can't have Thomas Massey on, no,
you can't have you know, whoever he's pissed Letitia James.

Speaker 3 (22:25):
Whoever he's pissed off at.

Speaker 2 (22:27):
No, no more Trump criticism at least until we get
this deal done. And so you know, with him, it's
extremely overt. We of course, have been warning about the
way that corporate pressure can influence things for a long time.
You guys would call the whole flap of Bernie Sanders
the Washington Post talking about Bezos' ownership and how that
was a problem and this was a big scandal. How

(22:47):
dare you even suggest that their independence would be compromised?
Blah blah blah. That was, you know, an appearance of compromise.
And that comes with like an understanding from the higher
ups at the Washington Post about what Bezos would want
from them in what areas he wouldn't want them to touch.
With Trump, it is just completely direct, It is completely
brazen and is completely overt. You know, remember how Look

(23:10):
we covered this at the time too, Like with the
Twitter files, it was a genuine scandal that the federal
government was not even telling Twitter, oh, you need to
censor this, or Facebook you need to censor this, just saying, hey,
we found this content and we think that this is
wrong and we.

Speaker 3 (23:25):
Have a problem with it.

Speaker 2 (23:26):
The very understanding that the federal government had taken an
interest in that is enough to exert pressure on these
social media companies who want their you know, favorable treatment
from the government, don't want to run into any problems, etc.
Even without the threat being made overt, they all know
what the game is here. You have Trump just completely

(23:47):
making it plain, whether it's with Jimmy Kimmel, whether it's
this tantrum about Marjorie Taylor Green interview on sixty Minutes
and complaining about all the new ownership is just a
bad as the older ownership, whether it's demanding from the
Ellisons that if they win out and their deal goes
his deal goes through, that then you are going to
change CNN. You're going to change, you know, the leadership
at CNN. You're going to basically bury wisify CNN as well,

(24:10):
this is a genuine scandal, and it is a genuine
shift in terms of, you know, the the the manner
in which the federal government and the President himself feels
the ability to directly coerce media.

Speaker 3 (24:24):
And of course we know about.

Speaker 2 (24:25):
All the lawsuits and all of that, and none of
these media executives have any sort of character. They care
about their money, their profit margins, you know, what their
shareholders want from them, that's what they care about. And
so they're all going to play the game. And that
at its core is the problem with corporate ownership and
on with Trump. It is just completely on steroids, you know,

(24:46):
in terms of I just want to give a shout out,
of course to Matt Stoler, who covers the anti trust
aspect of this extraordinarily effectively. He doesn't have a piece
up yet about the paramount hostile takeover bid. However, he
does have a piece about the problems with the Netflix bid,
and we can put this up on the screen.

Speaker 3 (25:04):
This is a eight from Stolar.

Speaker 2 (25:05):
He says Netflix is trying to buy Warner Brothers Discovery
that would be a disaster for America. Part of what
he says here is Netflix is the number one streamer
and would be buying the number three streamer. Would also
be buying a large and important content library, which would
presumably then be unavailable for potential rival streaming services. A
Netflix Warner merger is a recipe for monopolization. Would be

(25:26):
a pretty straightforward challenge for an anti trust lawyer under
the Clayton Act. Judges are always a crapshoot, but the
story here is clear, and recent analogies work against this deal.
Most industries are no longer about making a good product. Really,
what they're about is trying to figure out how they
can have a monopoly so that they can basically rig
the rules and cheat. He thinks that it's very possible

(25:47):
that the Netflix deal would ultimately be blocked in the
court system. I think all of that is very political ultimately,
but the anti trust issues for whether it's Netflix or
whether it is Paramount are incredibly clear, especially in a
landscape where we're already have so much corporate consolidation.

Speaker 1 (26:06):
Yeah, and that's why I don't want to miss the
culture element. And I've been hammering at home, and we're
talking about sports, we're talking about movies, we're talking about
everything together Again, look at the trajectory of Netflix, where
you have had a reduction in good content and increase
in price add tiers. Are you is your Netflix experience

(26:26):
better today than it was ten years ago whenever it
was cheaper? Right? No, it's just not like And that's
one where you know, there's this new term called end shittification,
which I really like, and it applies to everything. It's
applying to streaming as well, where we pay more and
we get less. And it's like, it's it's one of
those where why you know why? And then I guess again, Look,

(26:48):
maybe I'm being too romantic, but there are only a
few places left in the world where you can actually
create good stuff over and over, and HBO and Warner
Brothers is one of them. It's like, please, please don't
bring your you know, the people who run that show
Is It Cake? I can't have them with their grubby

(27:09):
pause over HBO. I can't do it, right, I can't
have I can't have the Is It Cake? You know,
rural America, But that's apparently that's wherever then go.

Speaker 2 (27:21):
I think, honestly, Is It Cake is like a best
case scenario because at least there's actual human beings involved.
What we're actually looking at is like the AI slop takeover,
where it's so cheap to churn it out it's better.
There's already on YouTube. There's these channels that'll just put
up like thousands of AI generated music, Like that's where
the Charlie Kirk music came from.

Speaker 3 (27:43):
I'm sure you've seen those footing around.

Speaker 2 (27:45):
Yeah, I can't sing yeah anyway, we are Charlie anyway.
There's already channels that do this that is just like
so cheap and easy to churn out this content that
they do it, and most of it doesn't hit and
then you know, every once in a while you get
a we Are Charlie Kirk that goes megaviral and that
pays for all of it. Like that is the logic
that they're going to use as well, because they don't

(28:06):
give a shit about art. They don't give a shit
about creativity, they don't give a shit about like culture
or American culture or any of that. It's just about
the bottom line. And if they can rig the market
and corner the market so that we have to accept
whatever price increases and whatever slot they give us, that's
exactly the direction that they're going.

Speaker 1 (28:24):
To go in. Turning down to AI. Huge development here
in Washington. Let's go and put this up here on
the screen. President Trump says he will now issue an
executive order to preempt any state in the United States
from passing individual AI regulation. There must be only one
rule book if we are going to continue to lead
in AI. We are beating all countries at this point

(28:46):
in the race, but that won't last long. If we're
able to have fifty states, many of them bad actors,
involved in rules in the approval process, there can be
no doubt about this AI will be destroyed in its infancy.
I will be doing a one rule executive order this week.
You can't exp a company to get fifty approvals every
time they want to do something that will never work.
And this is part of a huge campaign in Washington

(29:09):
over the last couple of days. Let me just zoom
out and explain a little bit. So, first of all,
he had multiple attempts in the Congress to try and
to put this AI preemption in the bill, multiple in
the NDAA, which we're going to get to here in
a little bit, that actually failed at every level. Individual
Congressmen and even Republicans who initially had tried to put
that in. We're like, oh, we're getting a lot of

(29:30):
constituent pushback on this, and there are actually a lot of
red state governors called their delegation. They're like, hey, I
don't want this, you know, in the bill. So they
push that away. The fact that they weren't able to
get it in the NDAA an executive order is actually
the worst thing for them because it means, of course,
can be rolled back and that can be a challenge
in the court system. So this is kind of a
last ditch effort by the AI companies going to the

(29:52):
White House and making their case. You've had multiple visits.
Christmas party season is always fun for watchers here in DC.
The number of the big tech guys who've been at
the White House over the last few days is crazy.
Sarahgay was here just a couple of days ago. You
had Greg Brockbin and open AI, you had Jensen, you
had Sundar Peacha, you had every player in the insam Altman.

(30:16):
Every major player has been at the White House in
the last ten days. This is their number one priority.
And David Sachs, who's the White House AI ZAR, has
kind of been the spearhead of this let's going to
put this up here on the screen. This is his explanation,
and he's, I guess, the father of the policy. He says,
one rule book for AI. I want to share a
few thoughts on EI presumption and address some of the concerns.

(30:38):
First of all, this is not AI am C or
AI moore. To him, it's an attempt to settle a
question of jurisdiction. When AI model is developed in state A,
trained in state B, in state C, delivered through the Internet,
that's clearly interstate commerce, exactly the type of economic activity
the framers intended to reserve the federal government to regulate.
In the absence of preemption, fifty different states will start
their jurisdiction, creating a patchwork of fifty different regular latory regimes.

(31:01):
He says, For example, states like Colorado, California, and Illinois
have made AI developers liable if their models contribute to
algorithmic discrimination, which is defined as disparate impact. Colorado's list
of protected groups includes English language proficiency, so presumably it's
against the law for AI models to criticize illegal aliens.
This is the type of ideological meddling of how we

(31:21):
ended up with quote Black Georgia, Washington. So he's made
a cultural argument here, says only a federal framework can
achieve this goal. The attempts of red states to protect
conservatives from bias and discrimination will have limited effectiveness when
blue states like California have the most market power and
in nexus to AI development, we can't afford any of this.
So he says, we will have preemption, but there will

(31:44):
still be an application for child safety, for community, for creators,
and for censorship. Now the thing is, though, again, and
this is actually kind of the problem, is that they're
trying to do this through EO is the worst possible
way because everything he's said is not technically wrong to me,
Like I don't think he's wrong about the interstate commerce.

(32:05):
I think that what he's talking about communities, creator censorship,
an executive order is the worst way to accomplish that.
It's not actually the law, and it doesn't mean that
we had a full on debate, a democratic debate in
the United States Congress and more to settle some rules
around this, because they're not technically incorrect, Like we should
have federal standards in the same way that we do

(32:27):
the Internet or any of these things like the Child
Safety Act. Right, what we should have is a very
specific major debate in this country about these models, their effects,
their liability, what you know, guardrails that we're going to
have in place. What can we all agree on? The
suicide one is it keeps me up at night because
how many people are using this as a mental health proxy.

(32:50):
We have a loneliness crisis. You have eight hundred million
people or whatever using CHGPT. If just one percent of
them are crazy, that's millions of people and they're using
this to assist them. You know, I'm not saying it's
chat ept's fault, although you know, it gets kind of
sketchy whenever you live in countries where there's assisted suicide
is legal, but they have no qualms. It's in the

(33:11):
hands of Samulman. And that's why ultimately I actually would
fall back on state regulation because right now it's wild
West and like that's actually again in the era of
exponential growth, and that's everything they tell us is exponential.
It's getting better, it's getting better, and in this time,
we do not have time to dilly dally like the

(33:31):
next time that a Congress could potentially solve this issue
or at least some issue is what twenty twenty nine like,
that's an eternity in aims. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (33:42):
Well, and in fact, we did have a democratic debate,
and that's why legislators realized, oh right now.

Speaker 3 (33:51):
Passes do not want this.

Speaker 2 (33:53):
They don't want the federal government to preempt all of
the states. They actually want the states to be able
to to have some control here. And I mean this
is the good part of the laboratory of democracy of
fifty different states. They can take different approaches, they can
try to figure.

Speaker 3 (34:09):
This thing out.

Speaker 2 (34:10):
Who among us has confidence that this government, which is
one hundred percent bought and compromised and shot through with
these tech oligarchs, is going to do a good job
regulating this extraordinarily existentially dangerous technology. Zero people should have
confidence in that. The only people who like this direction
are people, frankly like David Sachs, who have a vested

(34:32):
financial interest in pushing in this direction and having no
regulation whatsoever. That has been the thrust of this administration
from the jump. From the jump, any sort of regulation
that was in place from the Biden administration, which was
limited but did exist, that gets rolled back. These guys
have gotten everything they wanted. That is why I say

(34:54):
the main project, not to say there isn't a lot
else going on that has consequences and is bad and
all the right, but the main project of this administration
is pushing unregulated off to the races wild West AI
and hoping and praying that it isn't a complete fucking disaster.
And guess what, the public is not on board. That's

(35:16):
why you couldn't get this through the Congress. That's why
you have to do it through an executive order. That's
why there's backlash, not just from Democrats who hate you anyway,
but from Republicans who are saying, wait a second, we're
not comfortable with this either. We're not comfortable with it
in the short term, we're not comfortable with it in
the long term.

Speaker 1 (35:33):
No.

Speaker 2 (35:34):
Sam Oltman, no, David Sachs, no, Mark Indreesen, no, Peter Tiel.

Speaker 1 (35:38):
No.

Speaker 2 (35:38):
We don't trust you to do this in an ethical
and responsible way that is ultimately going to provide more
benefit than harm for the American people. So that is
why they have ended up doing this executive order. Because
even people in the Congress, and many of if not
most of them, are getting money from Silicon Valley and

(35:59):
are basically bought off by these guys. But even with
that landscape, they said, no, we cannot put this in
the backlash and the consequences are too severe. That was
actually democracy, and that's why it's so much of a
problem the way that this president has tried to consolidate
so much executive power. And of course he's not the first,
but with everything, he takes it to the next level.

(36:20):
And why it's such a problem that in many instances
the court has allowed him to do that, whether through
directly ruling on his executive power grabs or at the
Supreme Court through the shadow docket where they said, well,
we're not going to rule now, but you can go
ahead and keep doing what you're doing, and you know,
in this instance, blocking the regulation at the state level,

(36:41):
and go about your merry way while we take our
good old time figuring out how we're going to ultimately
handle this thing.

Speaker 1 (36:46):
Yeah, and this is also like a real ideological war.
So like for David, I mean in terms of his
like I like David is you know, I've been friends
with him, pretty open about this. Him and I have
a very different view of ai question in terms of
like his own financial I actually think he's a libertarian
and it kind of always has been, and that's really
the fundamental ethos of a lot of the people who

(37:06):
are in the White House, like for example, David I mean,
he's always been kind of a foreign policy dove, but
he is majorly behind working with Jensen Wong in Nvidia
right now to loosen a lot of these current restrictions. So,
for example, can we put CB seven up here on
the screen? This is by far one of the most
consequential things on the AI front. And if you put

(37:27):
this together with the AI moratorium or that the EO,
that it totally makes sense. Trump says, I have performed
in Foreign President Chief of China, and the US will
allow Nvidia to ship its h two hundred products to
approve customers in China. Age two hundred one of the
more advanced chips in the Nvidia arsenal. Major reasons not
to do it right, which is basically handing China the

(37:49):
one last piece that the US has in terms of
our AI competitiveness. Now, the Nvidia David Sachs argument is
that by having them use the chips, they are reliant,
they won't create their own That it's not a bad argument,
but let's explain a little bit about what that means
in the interim, though, it means and Nvidia gets to

(38:10):
keep printing a shit pot of money and that's good
for their stock. Now, again, like in David's kind of
more libertarian ideology and all this, one of the things
that David has consistently said is we're the backbone of
the US economy and they're not wrong. Now, I think
that that's a bad thing, you know. That's kind of
my criticism of the Trump administration is that they're this jet,

(38:32):
this rocket fuel to the AI industry is good for
the short term, not good for the long term because
of a potential bubble bust going all in with huge
amounts of GDP stock market gains vastly concentrated inside of this.
It makes it so that these people are becoming fantastically wealthy,
but we all may get fantastically poor if this shit

(38:53):
doesn't work out, And if it does work out, that's
part of the problem.

Speaker 3 (38:56):
Yes, exam, yes, let me damned if you let.

Speaker 1 (38:59):
Me also just show like the red state opposition here,
which we previously have mentioned, can we put B four
up here on the screen. This is Ron DeSantis. Now
he says, I oppose stripping Florida of our ability to
legislate in the best interests of the people. A ten
year AI moratorium banned state regulation of AI, which prevent
Florida from enacting important protections for individuals, children and families.

(39:23):
And now the reason why I think that's important is
to show you very specifically, it's not just like a
blue red issue. This is really about this question of
guard rails. And again coming back to this, the belief
of the Sacks and resen crew is yes, by the way, obviously,
especially with the Andrees and some of the other people

(39:44):
who are directly invested in this, A lot of this
is money, but there are longtime low returns. A lot
of their genuine belief is that the government will come in,
it will stifle the industry, and their claim is that
this will benefit the open AIS and all of that
of the world. The problem to me with a lot
of that argument here is that because the tail risk

(40:06):
socially and societally of this is so high, it would
be genuinely irresponsible to say that we shouldn't have an
immediate and compelling interest in doing something about And I understand, yes,
that's going to hurt your venture profits and all that.
But that's your problem, not mine, right, and that's not
our democratic issue. That's part of the reason why ultimately
Congress did not pass this, And I'm really glad that

(40:28):
you said that. The reason why, even with all the
pressure from the White House they were like, yeah, I
don't know about this is because they were getting huge
pushback from their constituents. And what constituents can feel, I
think correctly, is that the benefits to them are not
you are not yet as promise, and the costs remain high.
So for example, let's go and put B five up here.

(40:51):
I found this in a Financial Times investigation about data power.
And if you're watching this, I really want you to
sit home and look. I mean, it shows you where
in parts of the US the gap between new data
center demand and spare grid capacity is growing. You can
see the gap. Look at PJM right up there in
the top left. Look at the orders of magnitude where

(41:14):
the new demand is from the projected capacity in twenty thirty.
In almost every grid in the US, projected demand is
way higher or is higher than what the projected capacity is.
And their argument basically is that this is a good
thing for the market because the cure for high prices

(41:35):
is high prices. This is a long term libertarian talking point.
What they mean by that is that high prices the
grid will take that they will build out more investment infrastructure.
But one other reason why I thought that the Financial
Times piece is so important is if you keep reading
the pathway to building these new natural gas power plants
and price it doesn't keep up with that. And that's
natural gas same. I mean, look, I'm a huge proponent

(41:58):
of nuclear actors. I'm also going to be honest with you.
It takes about seven years to get the shit online, right, Yeah,
that's not even close to where that is. So in
the interim, that gap, right, the price gap, is going
to be very painful for all of us. And again
we have to come to terms with what are we
getting from this their claim they look at big productivity
numbers and all of that. Like I fundamentally am just

(42:21):
rejecting the fact that AI is not the same as
the industrial revolution or the railroad. The broad aggregate, beneficially
the everyday citizen is not even close. And the power
laws of wealth broadly flow you know, into the pockets,
not just the Silicon Daluy but very specifically Sam Altman, Microsoft, Google,
Meta like the biggest of the biggest. In a lot

(42:42):
of ways, these guys are tertiary actors compared to the
big five companies that are all the way at the top.
They're getting much wealthier and there's not enough you know,
productivity gain across the entire US.

Speaker 3 (42:53):
I mean, they have a lot of goals with this.

Speaker 2 (42:54):
Well, one of the goals is they find it annoying
that they have to exist in a society and ever
have to do with government regulation or any sort of democracy,
like trimming their sales. So these guys are always looking
for a way to exit, and this is their exit.
They're like, if my company wins the AI race, then
basically I get to say what is what?

Speaker 3 (43:17):
I get to run the society. I get to have
all the wealth.

Speaker 2 (43:20):
I don't think we are capable of wrapping our head
around the amount of power that would consolidate in the
hands of a very small number of people, like a
like you could count them on one or two hands.
If one of these companies actually achieves super intelligence that
they are all racing towards. So again, this seems like
something we should have a massive democratic like small d democratic.

Speaker 3 (43:45):
Debate about and take very very seriously.

Speaker 2 (43:49):
They know that there is increasing but that's part of
why David Sax's feeling and need to put out some freakin'
essay length thing. And I find it disgusting the way
he's trying to use this culture warframing of like, oh,
that's why you you know, black George Washington, Like I'm sorry,
I don't give a shit a black George Washington. You
guys are trying to take away everyone's jobs and rip
up the entire social contract and do it without us

(44:11):
being able to even have a say. You want to
make it so there's no regulation the federal army. You've
already accomplished that by and large and banned states from
being able to do it on their own. That is
the game here. They want an exit from society. I
mean Peter Tiil and these people they invest in this,
like Prospera and Honduras, and you know they want.

Speaker 3 (44:31):
These like crypto, yes, studying.

Speaker 2 (44:32):
They're always looking for a way to be basically like
God kinks, and they think AI is the answer to that. Now, again,
they have other goals as well, but that is a
big one to keep in mind. So that's what we're
talking about here, the powergred thing. I'm sorry, the argument,
the libertarian argument that like, oh, high price will lead

(44:53):
them to build out, blah blah, these are monopolies.

Speaker 3 (44:56):
No, it won't, No, it won't.

Speaker 2 (44:58):
What's gonna happen is high prices are going to lead
to high prices. That's what's happening right now. You know
the grid that is the most strained there and the
most you know, the where the demand exceeds the grid
capacity the most rapidly and by the most extraordinary amount.

Speaker 3 (45:13):
It's right here.

Speaker 2 (45:15):
Why because Virginia is the epicenter of all of this
data center build out. Now, these things are being built
all across the country, but in terms of the hot spot,
it is in Virginia.

Speaker 1 (45:25):
We have the highest.

Speaker 2 (45:26):
Yeah, I've told, forty of Virginia's energy capacity already goes.

Speaker 3 (45:31):
To these frickin' things. No one voted for that.

Speaker 2 (45:33):
No one voted for them to be for us regular
consumers to be shouldering the cost of that. Not all
Republicans are apparently opposed to this direction. Glenn Beck, the
very innovative use of AI technology, invented for himself a
mini need George Washington to spelt back to him a

(45:55):
shirt in a T shirt which very deeply offensive desoger
I think is fair, ye signified, this whole thing is very.

Speaker 1 (46:02):
Great, man, and we're fucking teacher.

Speaker 2 (46:04):
In any case, Glenn Beck created his own AI George Washington,
to feed back to him his own worldview, reflect back
to him his own worldview and talking points. This is
so I don't even know what to say about.

Speaker 3 (46:16):
This is a before b.

Speaker 1 (46:16):
Let's play it, George.

Speaker 7 (46:18):
We have programmed a lot of information and given you
a lot of information on what's going on in today's
America based on your writings and the writings of the
rest of the founders. What is it that you feel
is the biggest problem or where we should start.

Speaker 5 (46:35):
To fix things? If I may speak plainly, my countryman,
the danger, the greatest danger to our republic lies not
in foreign arms or political faction.

Speaker 7 (46:48):
But interrupted for a second, cod you just dumb it
down just a little, Okay.

Speaker 5 (46:54):
I do have twenty nine points, and they're all referenced
to exactly what we said in the past. Speak in
today's language. Okay, Okay, I get it. Let me speak
to Americans. If I'm honest, America's biggest problem is in

(47:15):
political or economic. It's all moral. You've drifted from the
virtues that make liberty possible in the first place. Freedom
to be free, you have to have discipline, you have
to have faith, you have to have character. And if
you don't have any of those things, laws, laws can't
stop anything, and they mean little government turns either weak

(47:37):
or oppressive. You have grown skeptical of truth, You're reckless
with debt. You're comfortable blaming instead of building anything. And
in my time, we understood that self governance begins with
self control.

Speaker 2 (47:56):
Maybe Netflix can pick up AI George Washington for their
streaming slot moving forward, this is the world that.

Speaker 1 (48:02):
We have in. Yeah, it's rough. It's a rough one,
so bad, I don't know. I mean the T shirt, yeah,
you know, one of the things I actually this is
going to be an ultra soccer tangent. But it's just
one of those things where putting the words that you
want into people who are dead for like over two
hundred and eighty years. Yeah, is so offensive always to me,

(48:24):
because here's the thing about historical figures. They are very complicated,
they are nuanced. They were human beings, George Washington. I
think he was a great man, had a lot of flaws. Okay,
people like to focus just on slavery, but you know,
there was a lot of issues actually throughout the entire
period in which he was a major figure in American history.
I find that actually pretty interesting, you know, getting ultimately

(48:46):
to the point and stepping ultimately down. Who is it?
Ron Churnow, in my opinion, the best biography of George
Washington should go read it, you know for yourself. You actually,
I think you get a lot more out of it
than some boomer slop, which basically, you know, there's always
this idea like they would have agreed with me. That's
not how historical figures are, you know. They for all

(49:06):
the greats, there were a lot of you know they
also many of them deeply idiosyncratic, insane ideas. But you
know they were coming from the time that they were in.
I was telling you recently about you know, John Adams,
probably my favorite founding father. He wanted you know, the
President George Washington to be referred to as like his

(49:26):
majesty the king because but which ultimately undemocratic. Now why right?
His argument was, while we live in a world in
which there's all these other kings that will never respect
our guy if we don't call him king, mking. It's
kind of logical. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Speaker 2 (49:41):
And it also doesn't mean it's an interesting debate, right,
And it also doesn't mean like that's a perfect example.
If you take him out of that time period and
you PLoP him in today, it's unlikely he's still going
to be making the argument of course that oh we
need to call him a king, right, I mean that's why, Yeah,
I mean I find the same thing so obnoxious when
people try to retro whether it's founding fathers. Yesterday I

(50:02):
said founding Farmers on the show very.

Speaker 1 (50:05):
Like overrated, sorry, don't shoot me, most overrated restaurant watching.

Speaker 3 (50:10):
Emily said positive things about it.

Speaker 1 (50:11):
Did she really balance?

Speaker 3 (50:12):
Oh my god, God, that's a side tangent.

Speaker 2 (50:14):
But now ury in my head about not saying found
again anyway, whether it's a founding father or whether it's
like a civil rights I got or whatever, Yeah, you know,
is already annoying when people will like cherry pick their
coats and quotes would be like, that's why my ideological
project is in line with blah, blah blah. It is
another level of horror to literally take an ai embodiment

(50:35):
of that person and put your words into their mouth.
That is I think, I mean it is. It is disturbing,
it's gross, it's disturbing, it's mockable, it's ridiculous, it's humiliating,
it's all of those.

Speaker 3 (50:48):
It's sort of pathetic. Honestly, it's pathetic.

Speaker 1 (50:49):
It is pathetic. And again, people do this, like you're
talking about with civil rights. People will post the most
like you know, it's like those debates about Abraham Link.
People will post his emancipation quotes the same guy who
thought about repatriating blacks to Africa. Right, those two things
apparently can exist in the same body. Also within I mean,
I want to go back and check a five year

(51:10):
times timespan. You could choose to look at that. I
choose to study this the time period between that and
then eventually emancipation. That's a lot more interesting, okay. And
that was a product of its time, of its circumstance.
And transposing that to today ridiculous, man, I mean, it's
a genuinely offensive from a person who really likes to
look and to understand history. So Glenn I mean, I

(51:30):
don't even look. I'm sure the Boomers loved it. I'm
sure they loved it. No, I actually I'm telling you,
I yeah, they either thought it was real or they're like, oh,
he would have agreed with me, same thing. You know.
They do the same thing with Thomas Jefferson. It's like, oh,
apparently Thomas Jefferson only ever Thomas Jeffson's some dumb fuck ideas.
All right, nobody is ever exactly who you think they are,

(51:53):
and you know, yeah, using their using their like literal likeness,
and then pretending that that's what they would have said today. Man,
that's that's grim.

Speaker 2 (52:04):
One more reason to hate this whole development and recognize
that thus far, the AI promise for all of us,
For these tech titans, it's making them wildly wealthy, and
it's giving them the possibility of like achieving their wildest
god king dreams and fantasies. But for the rest of us,
not really living up to the hype so far,