k no. I think no. But I understand yes. So I understand why you could say yes. So I'm not going to debate it, but I don't quite see it. Right? It might be true. So I'm making a fine point here. I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying I don't see the argument, but maybe. Maybe.

How about the dissemination of any WikiLeaks stuff? Do you think WikiLeaks being an anonymous organization, do you think that that benefited the world and Twitter allowing them to be anonymous helped that? I think yes. I think that's a good example. Yeah, that's probably a good example of where anonymous Twitter users had some benefit. I'll give you that one.

So this is why I have not formed a final opinion on this. Because I feel like we just maybe need better choices that handle more of our concerns. Our current choices leave out some concerns. I definitely think that anonymous people on Twitter have some value. And knowing the examples I think helps us a little bit.

So Elon Musk tweeted this. He was talking about Jack Dorsey. He was actually responding to Jack. And Jack Dorsey was saying that all of the Twitter files should be released. That we shouldn't be deciding what people see and what they don't. Everything that's on the right topic should all be released. Now what do you think about the fact that the ex-CEO of Twitter says everything should be released? What does that tell you about his own potential liability? Well he's not worried about it. Yeah, clearly he doesn't have anything to hide.

Now here's what Musk says in response. He says most important data was hidden — and then parenthetically, from you too. In other words, Musk is saying that the prior CEO of Twitter did not have the information that Musk has because it was hidden from both of them. But Musk found out, right? And some may have been deleted. So we don't know how much has been deleted and can't be recovered. But everything we find will be released. So Musk agrees.

Now I would like to take credit for the best prediction in this domain for a couple of years or more. I've been saying — I do not believe, and I've been saying this very aggressively — I do not believe that Jack Dorsey is aware of what the staff is doing. And I don't think he has a way to find out. I think the only reason that Musk found out is that he was willing to fire anybody who gives him an ambiguous answer to a question. And only the new... that's something only the new guy can do. I'll say guy generically, right? Only the new guy can fire you because your answer wasn't convincing. Like that's new guy energy. The existing person has to treat everybody as complete individuals, right? You have to look at how long they've worked there and all of your other interactions and everything. So it's hard for the existing legacy CEO to be enough of a hard-ass to find out what's going on. That's a tough job.

And I think one of the reasons — this is just speculation, I don't know this for sure — I think one of the reasons that Jack was so supportive of Elon Musk taking over is that even Jack knew that he was in a disadvantaged situation for running the company. Plus he had two companies, right? So that's also a factor. So I think that Musk has more than two, so maybe it wasn't a factor. But I think the new CEO has an advantage that the founder CEO can never match. And I think that's what Elon brought. I think he also stirred the pot so much that it just allowed maybe some things to bubble up. Because the whole Jim Baker thing only happened because Musk stirred the pot. Otherwise you never would have even heard that he was working there. It was only because Elon said let's make some trouble with these Twitter files that brought up all the other stuff.

So my claim that the CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, was not the one who was the mastermind behind any bad things that happened in terms of suppression, etc. — and I still believe that. Now we could find out differently. I mean anything could happen. But at the moment, would you give me that that was the best prediction, the most unlikely prediction and also the best one about this topic?

Now one of my critics said this morning, Scott, you never admit that you got the Covington kids hoax wrong for all of one day. I tell you that all the time. I tell you I got Trump's vice president pick wrong. I'm pretty sure that when I claim victory I often try to tell you which ones I got wrong. Because you can learn as much from the ones I get wrong as the ones I get right. Because there's a pattern to both, right? The ones I get right are because I had some special information. Either I knew something about persuasion or in the case of Twitter I personally interacted with Dorsey and I didn't think there was any chanc