Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive October 9, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas

Context —

Now if I'm doing the performance review for my staff, that's going to come up. I'll be there, you know, given the performance review like, all right, all right, Bob, let's see, looking at your performance over the year. There was, yeah, you were very punctual. That's a plus for you, Bob. Good job in that punctuality. I like a lot of your writing. You know, you did some good writing and some projec…

← Previous segment →

ing taken to court for unfair competition stuff, monopoly stuff. And so some of the things being suggested as monopoly stuff is that they're buying up their little competitors. So they buy the competitors, and there are some of them. As an example, they bought Instagram so it wouldn't compete with them. They bought WhatsApp so it wouldn't compete with them. So of all the things that Facebook is doing, was that the one you were worried about? I feel as if that was the only one I don't care about. Let me ask you this. Are you worse off because Facebook owns Instagram? Not because of competition, because I think I'm pretty sure Facebook improved Instagram, and now I can post on one and it shows up on both. I feel like I came out ahead, right? What about Facebook buying WhatsApp? Did that hurt you in some way? Did you not get to eat today because of Facebook WhatsApp? And what about all the smaller companies that they bought? Every one of those companies was hoping Facebook would buy them or somebody like them. Small companies, startups, they want to be purchased by the large companies. That's their exit strategy. Oh, we'll reach a certain size and Facebook or Google or somebody will buy us. Why would I want to take that away? Why would I want every startup not to have an exit strategy? That's the most obvious exit strategy that they all look for.

So here's my take on this movement against Facebook. I'm not defending Facebook. I'm just saying that there's sort of a gigantic dead elephant in the room here, isn't there? And the dead gigantic elephant is that the real problem is that they just changed the election result, effectively eliminating the republic, because they can just decide who gets to be president because the social media companies decide what you see and that decides and that makes your opinion and then you vote on it. So you have this gigantic problem, which is that the social media influences the election. That is an enormous problem. And then you've got this monopoly thing. Yeah, I get that it's the law. I understand the concept of not wanting monopolies as a general thing. I have a degree in economics. I'm no fan of monopolies. But am I watching my government go after the smallest problem they could identify? Because this is not my problem. I don't really care that Facebook bought its competitors. I don't really care that my friend who worked for WhatsApp made so much money that it's hard to count it. I don't care. I'm happy for my friend. He worked for a startup which was intended, everybody expected one of the ways they would exit is selling to a big platform, and then he did and he made a ton of money. I'm happy for my friend. I'm just not happy that they controlled the election. So that's an interesting misdirection going on there.

So what's interesting though is that 48 states are suing Facebook over this, which means that it's not Republican and it's not Democrat. Apparently everybody in the government likes to beat up on Facebook on this point as opposed to anything that I care about.

YouTube has told its creators by emails that they're going to start removing content about election fraud even though at the same time that there are still active court cases. Is that the most mind-boggling thing you've heard today? That YouTube is literally going to decide what the truth is and then they're going to take that and then they're going to remove from your site the ones that don't match their idea of what is true. Now I'm going to admit, and remember I said this from the start, that at least 95 percent of all the claims of fraud would be BS. At least 95. Would you say that that has borne out? That at least 95 of the claims you've seen claims have turned out not to be what you thought they were? I think so. I think I hit that prediction pretty well. About 95 are not true. But are they all not true? Can I not do a YouTube in which I say, you know, these areas had results that have a one in one quadrillion odds of being natural as opposed to being a sign of fraud? Can I not say that? Will I be demonetized or removed from YouTube if I say the following statement? Because I'm going to say it right now and see if I get removed. So I'm going to gamble a little bit of money

Context —

here on this. Would you like me to gamble in front of you? All right, here's my statement. Election fraud, because of the nature of our election systems and what we've learned about the at least the potential for fraud and what we've learned about the hatred for Orange Hitler, given that setup, there's a guarantee of widespread fraud. It's guaranteed. It can't not happen. So there's a direct state…

Next segment → →