From: allin
The Fox News Dominion lawsuit and media accountability culminated in a significant settlement regarding defamation laws in the United States [00:29:01].
The Dominion Settlement
Fox News settled with Dominion Voting Systems for $787 million for defamation, avoiding a trial [00:29:04]. This amount is described as a “ginormous fine” or a “big speeding ticket” [00:29:29].
David Sacks compared the fine to “handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500,” suggesting that media dishonesty is widespread across various outlets, not just Fox News [00:29:45]. He believes many more such fines should be issued to other networks like CNN, MSNBC, or The New York Times [00:30:07].
Chamath Palihapitiya noted that the 4 billion cash reserves [00:32:51]. This is the first of potentially several lawsuits, with a larger $2.5 billion lawsuit from Smartmatic still pending, which could deplete half of Fox’s cash [00:33:05]. He questioned the business rationale, stating that “some smart business governance needs to kick in over at Fox” because such actions don’t make economic sense [00:33:29].
Underlying Issues in the Case
The settlement likely occurred because of internal text messages among Fox News hosts, indicating they knowingly propagated false information about the election [00:37:08]. While allegations about electronic voting machines being hackable or rigged have been made by both political sides for years, the key issue was the specific evidence against Fox News in this instance [00:36:30].
From the perspective of those at Starbase, the media coverage of the SpaceX Starship launch was misleading, focusing on the explosion rather than the engineering triumph and data collected [01:5:05]. Chamath criticized mainstream media, including The Wall Street Journal, CNN, and The New York Times, for painting the event as a failure when it was considered a huge success by those involved [01:17:17]. This selective reporting contributes to a lack of credibility [01:24:00].
Reforming Defamation Laws and Media Practices
Sacks expressed a desire for the Supreme Court to revise the standard set by New York Times vs. Sullivan, which currently requires proving “actual malice” to win a defamation case against the press [00:31:11].
Proposed Changes to Defamation Standard
Sacks proposed that if media outlets make a mistake that damages someone’s reputation, they should be required to:
- Issue a correction at the same level of prominence as the original story [00:30:40].
- This correction would serve as a “safe harbor” [00:31:24].
- If they refuse to post a correction for a published lie that causes damage, they should be liable [00:31:27].
Addressing Journalistic Practices
Additional issues in journalism that need to be addressed include:
- Burying corrections, making them hard to find [00:31:36].
- Publications quoting other “shady” publications’ anonymous sources without independent fact-checking, creating an “echo chamber” [00:32:10]. This practice should not be protected [00:32:31].
- A clear delineation between “fact” and “opinion” in reporting [00:40:07].
Jason Calacanis stressed that the media needs to rebuild public trust through self-policing; otherwise, they will face more fines [00:34:40].
Proportional Fines and Future Implications
Chamath suggested implementing proportional fines, citing Finland’s system where speeding tickets are tied to net worth [00:34:43]. He believes the Fox settlement could embolden more individuals and organizations to sue media companies for egregious lies [00:35:05], with private equity or hedge funds potentially financing these lawsuits [00:35:21].
AI and Media Accountability
The rise of AI models, which aggregate and synthesize vast amounts of information, presents a new challenge for media accountability [00:39:13]. If these AI models become primary sources of news, the question arises about liability when their synthesized data or statements are disputed as false [00:39:28]. The need for clear guidelines on data usage for AI training, similar to robots.txt files, has emerged, with entities like Reddit and Stack Overflow now requiring payment and permission to use their data [00:40:47].
Crypto Regulation and Regulatory Overreach
The discussion extended to the broader context of regulation, particularly concerning crypto. The SEC’s Wells notice to Brian Armstrong of Coinbase, leading him to consider relocating out of the U.S. due to lack of regulatory clarity, was highlighted [01:21:27]. This is seen as effectively “banning crypto in America” and driving innovation overseas [01:23:00].
Sacks and Chamath discussed whether this crackdown was a “around find out” moment for crypto or a strategic move to protect the dollar amidst de-dollarization concerns [01:22:31]. Coinbase, despite trying to operate by the rules and seeking regulatory frameworks, was furthest from getting a license, while the most fraudulent entity, FTX, came closest [01:23:37]. This suggests that the system can be gamed by those willing to “say the right shibboleth” and make large donations [01:24:06].
The overarching principle for industries, including crypto and AI, is to “regulate yourself, behave yourself, act in the interest of consumers, or get regulated or smashed” [01:24:20]. However, the effectiveness of self-regulation is questioned, especially in areas that broadly impact public health, like the tobacco industry, where self-regulation primarily served to “lie to maximize profit” [01:24:51].