zation. And when you, cuz the left they're against monopolies but they don't see a government monopoly as bad and that's exactly what socialism is. It's like a government in charge of monopoly. So like if it's like yeah yeah I see your point that's pretty good because what people have been saying before is centralization versus decentralization and that has no persuasive power conceptually but when you said you're, why you added to this was monopoly versus some decentralized kind of thing and when you say monopoly I get that instantly. I like oh monopoly that's always bad. And in this case you know it's a government monopoly. That's pretty good. I'm not sure it's enough but I like where you're going with that. The thinking is solid on that.

I would, here let me take another run at it. I think you should diversify human beings. And let me say more about that. Capitalism diversifies the natural evil of human beings because you could have a lot of evil people but as long as there are some good ones making some good companies and stuff that are honest the good stuff will rise. So capitalism works pretty well that way. But if you don't diversify your evil you could end up with a centralized situation in which a few evil people are in charge. So in everything you should diversify. If you're investing you should diversify because you can't tell which companies are going to be good.

I often say if you have the option usually try to diversify your bosses. Having one boss is the worst thing in the world. Having lots of customers who are effectively your boss, let's say you work for yourself. Maybe this is an analogy. What would you rather do? Have one boss who could turn out to be the worst boss you ever had. That's what socialism looks like. You know centralizing. Or lots of customers and any one of those customers can have a bad day and be mad at you but it doesn't really matter that much. It's just one customer.

So I like where you're going there. I don't think my idea is quite there but I think you moved it along so thank you for that.

You're welcome. Thanks.

All right that was interesting. Let's go to Colleen. Colleen can you hear me? Colleen can you hear me?

I do. You have a question?

When you first brought up the whole shadow banning thing and about your followers I have to admit I was a little skeptical because I had never experienced that and I thought well people may just think that they were you know but when I experienced the other day a true shadow banning where you post a comment and on your page it's posted. Twitter then it hides it. And so in the upcoming election moving forward actual arguments on issues are now being hidden from the public where so when people see tweet not available it's a blocked person but now I know that's not the case. How can we draw more attention to this and get, I mean 2020 could be toast if it were manipulated this bad. It was just so shocking to me when I saw it.

Well I think there are a few things that at least we have some hope. Number one is the Trump administration seems to be aware of the problem so that's a big deal right? They, I believe that there are enough of them in the administration including Trump who understand that social media has at least the ability, whether they execute it or not they have the ability to determine the election and thwart the will of the people and make the system less credible. So but what do they do about it? I would say that the minimum they should do about it between now and Election Day is it seems like the most accessible thing would be to have some kind of an algorithm court. So some kind of a judge or judges who are the only ones who can see the algorithms but they have enough technical wherewithal or they're working with people who do that they can look at the algorithm and say okay at least I the judge understands it. I get that I can't tell the public because if the public knows the algorithm they can game the system. So that's the problem. But if the judge is the only one who knows that's compatible with our normal justice system. You know judges in the legal system and your lawyer can know things that the public doesn't know. That's we're used to that.

So that would probably solve the public's trust issue and it's something I think you could do relatively quickly. You know if you decided tomorrow to form algorithm court it'd probably take you six months to figure out how to do it right and get somebody in place and get somebody who's at least starting to look at the algorithms. And that would give you a good year before the election.

But if you don't do that here's the problem. Even if, I don't know how likely this is but even if all the social media companies said look we're not going to put our finger on the scale. Hey everybody you know don't do anything that would change this