Trade EverythingJul 11
free markets are responsible for our prosperity. let’s build more of them.
Tarek MansourLast week, in a surprise reversal, Flexport founder Ryan Petersen ‘accepted the resignation’ of now former CEO Dave Clark, and resumed full-time command of his company. Following the news, which was delivered over a Zoom call, Clark immediately hired several political consultants to advise him on a run for governor of Texas (lol).
Now:
There’s been a mix of reporting on what went down at the company, with some implying Clark and Petersen butted heads, but Ryan personally poached Clark from Amazon, and the two co-led the company, amicably, for many months. Speaking of Amazon, however, the Information correctly (if a little too charitably) points out Clark was used to the kind of incredible spending possible at a once-in-a-generation runaway monopoly (worth about $1.4 trillion compared to Flexport’s $8 billion at last valuation), and based on my own conversations with people close to the situation it does seem spending was a major issue. In a world of higher interest rates, there are no more guaranteed successful IPOs. Profitability — and I understand this is going to sound insane — sort of matters, now. Compound this basic macro reality with the fact that e-commerce volume is down from its pandemic peak, and it seems Flexport will need to reassume its scrappier founding quality. Ryan is obviously the man for that job.
But there is a quite important piece that hasn’t yet been covered: large swaths of the company also appeared to genuinely hate Clark, who rarely left Texas, and couldn’t be reached by most employees without a nebulous journey through his EA. Even in a bull run, a remote-first leadership style would have been frustrating for a team used to the in-the-trenches type leadership of a founder/CEO. But in a market downturn? Clark’s style was unthinkable.
Following Ryan’s quick firing of the Amazon hires brought into Clark’s inner circle — described by one person at the company as “midwit yes men” who “couldn't understand the most basic things about an income statement much less a complex global freight network” — the following item was posted on Blind, where Ryan is presently more popular than Kim Jong Un:
A handful of other items on Blind generally indicate a culture in conflict. It was the old guards who built the place in opposition to a new class of Amazon execs:
There’s still some ambiguity surrounding how Ryan was insulated from the reality of Clark’s leadership until after Ryan left, but it’s clear the reality at Flexport was meaningfully different than Clark’s version laid before the board. In any case, an interesting — if difficult — fact for founders: unless you’re Google, there is almost never any leaving.
I first wrote about Ryan in a piece called Shitposting Gods of Silicon Valley, in which our intrepid CEO toured America’s frozen ports by boat, educated the public on our supply-chain crisis, and coordinated with our government to fix the problem. The world is created by fewer men than we often realize, and they tend to be more extraordinary than we’d like to acknowledge. Ground floor, it’s hard to replace people like this. Additionally, trying to build what one Flexport employee called “Amazon 2.0” was probably doomed from the start. As Thiel once said, every successful company is a miracle, each unique in its own way. Fortunately for Ryan, Flexport doesn’t have to be Amazon; it’s already an incredible company.
Back to the path we go.
---
Free speech is so hot right now. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals just said “thank you, next” to the notion that government officials are allowed to contact social media companies and tell them what is, and is not, “misinformation.” The state is currently no longer able to request information be removed from media platforms — which the court agrees it has done on a range of politically-charged topics — unless the content violates the law. The ruling implies the Biden Administration has “coerced” social media companies, in violation of the First Amendment. The New York Times, which has argued on behalf of censorship since Trump’s election, tried to soften the Biden administration’s coercion by arguing the administration only attempted to pressure social media companies into removing “false content,” which is not only factually inaccurate, but irrelevant. Given we live in America, the state is still not allowed to determine what does and does not constitute “real information.” Thank God.
The court’s injunction is a fascinating read, worth checking out in full, but the tl;dr is the court looked at evidence indicating the Biden administration had de facto control of censorship across social media platforms on a range of issues, which materially “chilled” speech. Worth noting the pro-censorship left is claiming this is a “conservative” court, carrying on in the wild liberal concession of “liberalism” as a liberal value.
Speaking of speaking: Elon Musk is once again suing someone. According to X comms, Twitter/X filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the state of California in response to AB 587. AB 587 would require social media platforms to file reports on their official policies for the following categories of speech: hate speech or racism, extremism or radicalization, disinformation or misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference.
X’s argument: forcing a company to talk about its content moderation policies concerning things like “hate speech,” “extremism,” and “disinformation,” which have no legal definition in the US, and legally can’t be banned, necessarily locks the company into an implied frame, and essentially force it to take public positions on each contentious topic. Elon’s team is suing on grounds that such compelled speech violates the First Amendment, and further argues the law will be used against Americans.
That the intention of the California law is to mainstream censorship reads to me as obviously true. But our courts have already signaled frustration with the state for this sort of thing, and I’m frankly expecting many victories for speech, one of the most robustly defended aspects of American law (thanks mostly to liberals, or at least up until about five minutes ago).
Pretty cool to see a social media company suing on behalf of our right to speech. Felt unthinkable a few years ago, and reminds me of the most ferocious days, in American antiquity, of journalists caring about this issue. Indicative, perhaps, of where meaningful speech is now happening. It makes sense the frontier is always where the battles are most hardly fought.
War. In Walter Isaacson’s new biography of Elon, it was revealed Starlink declined to expand service into the Russian-occupied territory of Crimea, which the Ukrainian government requested for purposes of an offensive. This act has been interpreted by supporters as preventing a nuclear war (which, thank you I guess, but this feels like sort of a lot of power?), and by detractors as treason (important to note Elon is not Ukrainian, nor is America at war with Russia). (@elonmusk)
The fact that single American citizens, largely in tech, now maintain such outsized impact on geopolitics is a relatively new phenomenon I covered back when Russia first invaded, and tech executives made a dangerous show of their support by actively engaging in retaliation. This one is tough. I understand the impulse to engage, and in the case of Starlink, Elon actually has to engage — the decision to offer service, or to expand service, is a decision that literally can’t be avoided. But these actions are often interpreted as American actions, and that poses many new challenges we still have yet to parse.
For what it’s worth, while the pro-censorship, Elon-obsessed pitbulls at CNN recently attempted to goad some criticism from Secretary of State Antony Blinken, he stood in defense of Elon. This has naturally been framed as indication Elon is bad. There is no winning, for any of Elon’s companies, until Twitter adopts CNN’s preferred censorship protocols.
---
---
---
While I typically blow through these unhinged items myself, this week’s Clown World lead is brought to you by Sanjana Friedman, who I forced to listen to the whole ass California State Senate legislative session as we waited for news on AB-316 (the bill that just tried to ban self-driving trucks). What followed, entirely by accident, was simply too beautiful not to share. Enjoy.
Last Wednesday, at 10 a.m. PT — 6 p.m. in London, where I’m based for the next two weeks — I settled into an armchair with a cup of coffee and braced myself to watch a livestream of the day’s California State Senate session. My goal was straightforward: listen for the results of the vote on AB-316, a bill which effectively bans autonomous trucks throughout the state, and hit send on a pre-written tweet as soon as it passed. The bill was item #412 on a lengthy daily agenda, but it seemed like a couple hours of engagement with our nation’s legislative process was worth a viral tweet.
Or so I thought.
Every California Senate session begins with a roll call, a “Prayer by the Chaplain,” and the Pledge of Allegiance. The Senate’s Chaplain, Sister Michelle Gorman, began her prayer by asking the “God of our ordinary days and nights, God of extraordinary times” to “guide our discerning and our deciding, and attune our hearts to the murmurings of both peace and of disquiet.” The chamber resounded with an ‘Amen.’
Then consideration of the Daily File began. AB-261, which makes the California Golden Chanterelle the official state mushroom, passed unanimously. AB-819, which decriminalizes fare evasion on public transportation, and AB-1679, a Prop C-style bill imposing a new tax on LA County and earmarking its revenue exclusively for ‘addressing homelessness,’ both passed without debate. On the other hand, AB-782, which protects the use of artificial flavoring in children’s medication, provoked comment from the chamber. “Mary Poppins always said that a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down,” one member noted.
Halfhearted debate briefly arose on AB-957, a bill introduced by the Senate’s “LGBTQ+ Caucus” to add non-affirmation of a child’s “gender identity or expression” to the list of welfare considerations in parental custody hearings. Members opposed to the measure spoke about how much they loved their own spouses and children. Members supporting the measure spoke about ‘trans genocide’ and ‘queer welfare.’ The bill passed by a wide margin.
Five hours into the hearing, as the steady beat of ayes and nays fell upon me like cold-water droplets in a medieval torture technique, I found myself wishing that all the bills — from the completely asinine to the completely destructive — would pass on a unanimous, simultaneous vote, if only so this prolonged torment would end. Let the kids drink orange-flavored cough syrup. Let them irrevocably stunt their puberty. Make payment optional on public transportation. Take my firstborn child. Do anything at all, but please make the democracy stop.
Finally, at 4 p.m. California time, 1 a.m. in London, the session adjourned. AB-316 had not been heard on the floor. I would have to tune in again tomorrow.
— Sanjana Friedman
A few more clown world links to close out:
Alright so you know about the gay sex app Grindr, yes? And you have already correctly intuited the company has attracted a largely unhinged employee base, right? Well, they tried to unionize in an effort to secure gay liberation (they didn’t want to go to work), but did not secure that ‘labor’ victory fast enough. Big Blowjob forced the employees back to the office (two days a week), and then the very crazy ones all quit (about half the company). Wired’s headline was too good to not include: “Grindr’s Return-to-Office Ultimatum Has Gutted a Uniquely Queer Space in Tech” (Wall Street Journal)
MacKenzie Scott (Bezos’ ex) donated $20 million to a San Francisco housing nonprofit run by police abolitionists, and a Dean Preston aide that buys property at over market prices, means-tests the tenants, and raises the rent on those who can afford to pay it — all without a new unit ever being built. The donation apparently 20x’d the nonprofit's budget, which is how, by the way, the city is run by the actual craziest activists in our country. As it turns out, when you give these people money they tend to stick around and use it. Billionaires! They really are destroying the city, turns out. (SF Chronicle)
0 free articles left