All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - E107: The Twitter Files Parts 1-2: shadow banning, story suppression, interference & more

🎁Amazon Prime 📖Kindle Unlimited 🎧Audible Plus 🎵Amazon Music Unlimited 🌿iHerb 💰Binance

You were bloated last night. What else is new?

I said not bloated. My God, you really are, though.

You look bloated.

Listen, that’s coming from you.

You started to look like Bert, and now you’re back to Ernie.

Your face is getting round again.

All I have to say is, hold on a second, guys.

I gotta get a drink. Is that okay?

You guys got a minute for me to get a drink?

Yeah, yeah. I definitely do. I definitely do. Go ahead.

Hold on a second.

You gonna get a beer?

No, no. I’m actually, you know, I’ve been working on my weight,

so I’m just gonna pick here.

I think I have the mocha latte from Supergut,

and I also have the chocolate shake.

Do you have a recommendation here for me, Friedberg?

Because I’m gonna put it in my coffee.

Is mocha on a mocha?

You can’t go wrong.

You can’t go wrong.

Thank you.

Double mocha’s a win.

Just on a completely unrelated topic,

did you happen to invest in Supergut, J. Cal?

No, no, no. I haven’t invested yet.

But use the promo code ****.

Oh, okay.

It’s been a big part of my weight loss journey.

It’s also been a big part of me and Friedberg

becoming besties and creating a unified block

for All In Summit 2023.

So I’ve got two solid votes.

I’ll be very honest with you.

If you guys give me a credible plan

where we can maintain the integrity…

I was joking.

Okay, hold on. Hold on.

I was joking.

Hold on.

Maintain credibility. Continue.

Listen to me. Listen to me. Listen to me.

If you two idiots…

I’m not involved.

Yes, you are.

You clearly are involved with this **** grift.

You’re an important vote. Hold on.

No.

Continue, Chamath. I’m writing this down.

If you two idiots…

Okay.

The two of you have to do this together

because otherwise I’m with David

and there’s absolutely…

Idiots. Got it.

You two idiots need to come up with a plan…

Plan. Got it. Idiots plan.

Where we can each make…

Make?

4 million bucks each. Net.

Then I’ll do it.

4 million. Net. Okay. Great.

Look at Jkal writing that down

as if he respects the contract.

Okay. Got this. Got this.

I signed the **** contract.

I signed the contract.

For Jkal, the negotiation begins

at the point where there’s a signed contract.

Yeah, exactly.

He’s like, okay, now I’ll negotiate with you.

All right, everybody, the show has started.

The four of us are still here.

By some miracle,

we’re still going after 107 episodes

and it’s better than ever.

Last week, we were number 12.

So, mainstream media,

we’ll see you in the top 10.

Mainstream media.

Here we go.

Twitter files, part one and part two.

We’re not on strike,

despite your oppressive conditions.

Yes.

Jkal, we’re not on strike.

My oppressive conditions

of making you show up on time.

Yeah.

If I was getting paid five bucks for this,

I’d be on strike right now.

Guys, not only are you getting five bucks,

you’re getting a bill for the production.

Okay, here we go.

By the way, how beautiful is it

that the same reporters

who couldn’t stop writing

about the oppressive working conditions

that Elon Musk was supposedly creating

because he simply wanted the employees

to go back to the office and work hard.

And if they didn’t,

he’d give them a generous

three months severance package.

Those same reporters are now on strike

because the souls burgers

are running a clickbait farm over there

with oppressive working conditions.

The intellectual dishonesty

has never been higher in the world.

Yeah.

I’m looking for intellectual honesty.

Yes.

Will the publisher of the New York Times

agree that anybody

who isn’t happy there

can have a voluntary

three months severance package?

Yeah.

Click this link.

And do you want to work hard

or do you want three months severance?

If the New York Times publisher did that,

you know what would happen?

800 of 1200 people

would take the severance.

Of course.

All right, here we go.

Twitter files have dropped.

Part one dropped

with the legendary

award-winning

highly respected journalist

Matt Taibbi.

If you don’t know who he is,

he is a left-leaning journalist

who worked at Rolling Stone

and did the best coverage,

hands down,

of the financial crisis

and the shenanigans

and he held truth to power

to that group.

This is important to note.

The second drop

was given to Bari Weiss,

who is a right-leaning

independent journalist.

These are both independent journalists.

She previously worked

at the New York Times itself.

Now,

I think we should work backwards

from two to one.

Do you agree?

Yes, for sure.

Let’s start with the drop

that just happened last night.

Yes, so last night a drop happened.

So,

here’s what happens

in

Twitter files part two.

I’m going to give a basic summary

and then I’m going to give it to Sax

because he’s chomping at the bit.

We now have confirmation

that

what the right thought

was happening all along,

which is a secret

silencing system

built into the software

of blacklists

was tagging

right-wing

conservative voices

in the system.

And these included

people like Dan

Bongino.

Is that how you pronounce it?

Yes.

He was tagged

with being on a search blacklist.

What that means is

you’re a fan of

Dan’s

who is a

former Secret Service agent

who is now

a right-wing conservative.

Let’s just say conservative

instead of wing.

A conservative

radio host,

podcast host.

He

was not allowed to be found

in search engines

for some reason.

Charlie Kirk,

who is a conservative

commentator,

he was tagged with

do not amplify.

I guess that means

you can’t trend

into people’s feeds

even if they follow you.

And then

there were people

who were banned

from the trends

blacklist

including a Stanford

professor

Jay

Bhattacharya.

Did I get it right?

Yes, Jay Bhattacharya.

Okay, I got it right.

Doctor of Stanford

School of Medicine.

And he

was

not allowed

on the trends

blacklist

because he

had a dissenting

opinion.

A Stanford

professor had a

dissenting opinion.

A dissenting opinion on COVID

that’s turned out to be true.

And this is where

the danger comes in

because all of these

actions

were taken

without

any transparency.

And

they were taken

on one side

of the aisle

by people

inside of

Twitter

essentially covertly.

No ownership

of who did it

and

they never told

the people.

They gaslit them.

They

could see

their own tweets.

They could

use the service

but they

couldn’t be seen

even by their

own fans

in many cases

here.

Sax, when you

look at that,

let’s just start with that

first piece.

The shadow banning

as it’s called

in our industry

where you can

participate in a

community

but you can’t

be seen.

Are any,

is there any

circumstance

under which

this tool

would make sense

for you to deploy

and then what’s your

general take on what

has been discovered

last night?

Okay, look.

Two part question.

Yes.

Let me start with

what’s been discovered

here.

Let me boil it down

for you.

This is an

FTX level

fraud

except that what

was stolen here

was not customer

funds.

It was not

the right of

Dan Bongino

to speak

but the right

of the public

to hear them

in the way

that they expected.

Okay?

And you had

statement after

statement by

Twitter executives

like Jack Dorsey,

like Vijay Gadi,

like, you know,

Yoel and others

saying we do not

shadow ban

and then they

also said we

certainly,

this is their

emphasis,

do not shadow

ban on the

basis of political

viewpoint.

This is exactly

what they were doing.

They, in the same

way that SBF was

using FTX

and customer

funds as a

personal piggy

bank, they

were using

Twitter as their

personal ideological

piggy bank.

They were going

in to the

tools and using

the content

moderation system,

these big brother

like tools that

were designed

to basically put

their thumb on

the scale of

American democracy

and suppress

viewpoints that

they did not

agree with and

justify

removing content

based on their

own rules.

So there are

conversations in the

Slack that Barry

Weiss exposed

where, for example,

Libs of TikTok,

they admit in the

Slack that we

can’t suppress

Libs of TikTok

based on our

hate policy.

Libs of TikTok

hasn’t violated it.

We’re going to

suppress that account

anyway.

Now, it’s important

to note what Libs of

TikTok does.

This is a great

talking point.

Libs of TikTok

finds people who

are trans,

people who are,

you know,

maybe not

LGBTQ,

and

they feature

their TikToks

and they mock

them on Twitter.

Now, this certainly

is free speech.

And the argument

from the safety

team was by

putting all of

these together,

you’re inciting

violence towards

those people.

And they said

they haven’t broken

a rule, but

collectively,

they could be

in some way

targeting those

people.

Is there anything

that you can

share,

Friedberg,

to that

statement?

That they

targeted them?

By collecting

their,

let’s say,

views that are,

I’m asking this

question for discussion

purposes, I’m not

giving my opinion.

Hold on.

I want Friedberg to

answer one.

Why can’t I finish?

I’m going to go back

to you.

You spoke for two

minutes.

That’s why.

Friedberg.

You turned down

moderating today,

Sax.

You could have

turned down

moderating today.

The filibuster

continues.

Go ahead.

Then you can

both sides

this issue.

Don’t worry,

Sax.

While you’re

speaking, he’ll

drop one or two

words on you,

and then,

yeah, go ahead.

Why did

people like

Adi and

Yoel deny

that they

were engaged

in shadow

banning,

even though

that’s clearly

what they

were doing?

Because they

did not

implement

their own

policy that they

said they were

implementing.

Why?

Because they

were suppressing

accounts that

personally offended

them, that

personally they

disagreed with,

and they wanted

to deprive the

public of the

right to hear.

Okay.

Now, the way

that they’re

justifying this,

hold on, the

way that the

media is

today justifying

it is they’re

pointing to

obscure provisions

that they

did not have

the right to

use these

tools in this

way.

Okay.

Jay Bhattacharya

was not posting

spam.

He’s a Stanford

professor.

And his

view on

COVID has been

proven correct

completely.

He was opposed

to lockdowns.

That was the

great Barrington

Declaration.

And they

suppressed it.

What is the

justification for

that?

So now you

have to answer

the question then

since you are so

interested in talking.

Hold on.

I want him to

answer one question.

Then it’s going to

you, Freeberg.

Sachs, should

lives of TikTok

be able to

collect trans

people living

their life,

making TikToks,

put them into

a group feed,

mock them,

and if

those people

experience

harassment because

of it, is

that something

that Twitter

should allow?

I’m asking you

this without

giving my

opinion.

I’m curious your

opinion specifically

for the lives of

TikTok since you

opened that door

and you wanted to

bring up that

very thorny

issue.

Go.

Listen, so on

lives of TikTok,

my understanding

of that account

is that they

only take

videos that

have already

been made

public by

another account.

They’re all

public.

They’re all in

the public

domain and

then they

repost them.

What I think

these Twitter

executives have

interpreted is

that they live

in such a

bubble and

they live

with such

privilege and

entitlement

that they

think that

when their

point of view

gets criticized

or challenged

that that in

and of itself

is harassment.

That’s not.

That is public

debate and

they want to

make themselves

and their

points of view

immune to

public debate

if an

aggregate,

those people

report being

harassed and

they have

evidence of

being harassed,

what should

Twitter do?

Listen, if

somebody is

harassed, I’m

fine with

taking that

down, but

being publicly

criticized or

simply retweeted

is not

harassment,

okay?

Harassment

needs to be

targeted and

it needs to

be more than

just public

criticism or

mocked.

You don’t

consider that

targeted harassment?

Got it.

Don’t listen to me

about it.

Listen to

Twitter’s own

Slack files about

it.

They knew that

the account that

lives of TikTok

was not

violating the

rules, yet

they suppressed

it, they

suspended it

six times.

They knew

they were on

shaky ground.

They wanted to

do it anyway.

Why?

Because it’s

their point of

view.

They articulated

a vision for

the product

he wanted

Twitter to be,

but I don’t

think that’s

necessarily the

product that

they wanted to

create.

It’s not that

Twitter set out

at the time

or stated

clearly that

they were going

to be the

harbinger of

truth and

the free

speech platform

for all.

I think they

were really

clear and

they have been

in their

mind since

this is a bit

of a nothing

burger that

they were

curating and

they were

editing and

they were

editorializing

other people’s

content and

the ranking

of content

in the same

way that

many other

internet

platforms do

to create

what they

believe to be

their best

user experience

for the users

that they

want to

appeal to.

And I’ll

give you an

example.

A guy

named

Tony

Stoppelman

went to

D.C.

and he

complained about

how Google

was using

his content

and he

wasn’t being

ranked high

enough as

Google’s own

content that

was being

shoved in

the wrong

place.

And there

was a guy

who ran

kind of,

he was the

spokesperson

for

Google.

And

I think

the work

gets to

the point

that they

said there’s

so much

stuff that

we know

is the

best content

and the

best form

of content

for the

user

experience

that they

ranked it

all the

way at

the top

and they

called it

the one

box.

They’re not a

free speech,

they’re not the

internet,

they’re a

product.

And the

product managers

and the

people that

run that

product team

ultimately

made some

editorial decisions

that said

this is the

content we

do want to

show and

this is the

content we

don’t want to

show.

And they

certainly did

wrap up,

you know,

a bunch of

people saw

that and

clearly he

stepped in and

said I want

to make a

product that

is a

different product

than what is

being created

today.

So none of

this feels to

me like these

guys were

the guardians

of the

internet and

they came

along and

they were

distrustful.

They did

exactly what

a lot of

other companies

have done

and exactly

those were

in-app features

and in-app

services.

This was not

about taking

someone’s tweet and

changing it and

people may feel

shamed and they

may feel,

you know,

upset about the

fact that they

were deranked

or they were

kind of quote

shadow banned

but ultimately

that’s the

product they

chose to make

and people have

the choice and

the option of

going elsewhere

and I don’t

agree with it

and it’s not

a good

thing.

I think

moderation is

incredibly

difficult and

typically what

happens is

early on in a

company’s

life cycle,

you want to

see the

free market

do its

job.

Chamath,

you worked

at Facebook.

Facebook seems

to have done,

I would say,

an excellent

job with

content moderation.

I think in

large part,

correct me if

I’m wrong,

it’s a

company’s

life cycle

and I’m

going to

guess that

Twitter and

YouTube were

very similar

to what we

did at

Facebook and

it’s very

similar to

probably what

TikTok had

to do in

the early

days,

which is

you have

this massive

tidal wave

of usage

and so

you’re always

on a little

bit of a

hamster wheel

and you

don’t

recognize the

people that

are at

Twitter

because I’m

not sure

that there

are these

super nefarious

actors per

se.

I do

think that

they were

conflicted.

I do

think that

they made

some very

corrupting

decisions but

I don’t

think that

they were

these evil

actors.

I think

that they

didn’t have

an opportunity

to take a

step back

and reset and

I think that

that’s true

for all of

these companies

and so

you’re just

seeing it out

in the light

what’s

happening at

Twitter but

don’t for a

second think

that any

other company

behaved any

differently.

Google,

Facebook,

Twitter,

ByteDance and

TikTok,

they’re all

the same.

This is

summarized

really elegantly

in this

Jay Bhattacharya

tweet.

So,

please,

Nick,

just throw it

up here so

that we can

just talk

about this.

This is

why I

think that

this issue

is important.

Critically.

This is a

perfect tweet.

Still trying

to process

my emotions

on learning

that Twitter

blacklisted

policies like

school closures

and a

generation of

children were

hurt.

Now,

just think about

that in a

nutshell.

What was

Jay Bhattacharya

to do?

Maybe he

was supposed

to go on

TikTok and

try to

sound the

alarm bells

through a

TikTok.

Maybe he

was supposed

to go on

YouTube and

create a

video.

Maybe he

was supposed

to go on

Twitter and

create a

video.

A lot of

these

companies had

similar policies.

In this

example,

it was the

CDC and

governmental

organizations

directing

information

and rules

reaching out

to all of

these companies.

We’re

just seeing

an insight

into Twitter.

The

implication of

suppressing

information like

this is

that in

not being

able to

spark the

debate,

you have

this

building up

of errors

in the

system.

And then

who gets

hurt?

In this

example,

which is

true,

you couldn’t

even talk

about school

closures and

masking up

front and

early in

the system.

If you

had scientists

who could

do that,

those are

all factual

things we can

measure today.

So I think the

important thing to

take away from

all of this is

we’ve got

confirmatory

evidence that

whether they’re,

you know,

these folks

under a

tidal wave

of pressure

made some

really bad

decisions.

And the

implications are

pretty broad

reaching.

And now I

do think

governments have

the ability

to do

what they

want.

I think that

that is

too naive of

an expectation

for how

important these

three companies

literally are

to how

Americans

consume and

process information

to make decisions.

Incredibly well

said.

Sach, your

reaction to

your besties?

I largely agree

with what

Chamath said,

but let’s

go back to

what

Freiburg

said.

They

didn’t

follow along

what was

happening.

This was

just content

moderation.

They had the

right to do

this.

You’re making a

big deal over

nothing.

No, that’s

not true.

Go back and

look at the

media coverage

starting in

2018.

Article after

article said

that this

idea of

shadow banning

was a

right-wing

idea.

I don’t

think it’s

true with

SBF.

It might

be true

with

Jack.

Furthermore,

you had

people

again

tweeting

and

repeatedly

stating

we do

not

shadow

ban

on the

basis of

political

viewpoint.

These

people were

denying

what

they

were

saying.

This

was not

known a

long time

ago.

It was

disputed by

you.

And now

finally it’s

proven.

And you’re

trying to

say it’s

not a

big deal.

It is a

big deal.

It’s a

violation of

the public

trust.

And if

you were

so proud

of your

opinion

about

the public’s

access to

knowledge,

to opinions,

to free

speech,

this has got to

be a good

change.

This has come to

light.

It’s going to

get resolved.

Do you think

there’s

penalty

s for

the people

that work

there?

What’s the

anger?

You won.

I think we

got extremely

lucky that

Elon Musk

is the

only

billionaire

who has

that level

of means,

who actually

cared enough

to take on

this battle.

I think he

deserves praise

for that.

But, I

mean, unless

Elon can buy

every single

tech company,

which he

clearly can’t,

I think you

guys are

right.

This is

happening to

a lot of

other tech

companies.

We’re

going to

put a very

fine point

on a comment

that Elon

actually tweeted

out.

And, Nick,

if you could

find that,

please, that’s

a very good

tweet, where

he said,

going forward,

you will be

able to

see if

you were

shadow

banned,

you were

able to

see if

you were

de-boosted,

why, and

be able to

appeal.

I think

these social

media companies

should be

subject to

it.

And the

reason is

because it

ties a lot

of these

concepts together

and says,

look, you

can build

a service,

you’re a

private company,

make as

much money

as you

want, but

we’re going

to have

some

connective

tissue

back to

the

user.

And by

the way,

the companies,

the companies

will love it

because I think

it’s super

hard for you

to be in

these companies

and they

probably are

like, take

this responsibility

off my plate.

It’s very

simple.

This is a,

there’s really

four problems

that occurred

here.

Number one,

there was

no transparency.

The people

who were

shadow

officers

had a

fair

judgment

or not.

In the

cases we’ve

seen so

far from

Bari Weiss’s

reporting in

the Twitter

files part,

it’s very

clear that

these were

not

justifiable.

Number two,

these were

not evenly

enforced.

It’s very

clear that

one side,

because we

don’t have

one example

of a person

who was

shadow

banning,

was

not

doing

what

they

were

supposed

to be

doing.

It’s very

clear what

happened

here.

Because

these all

occurred with

a group

of people

working at

Twitter,

which is

96 or

97%

left

leaning.

The statistics

are infuriating.

And this is a

discussion that

myself,

Saxe,

and

Elon have

had many

times about

this moderation.

And I’m not

speaking out of

school now

because he’s

now very

public with

his position

and his

position he

came to

on his

own.

It’s not

like this

is Saxe

and I

coming up

with this

position.

It’s

not like

this is

the

right

wing

moderators

who

were

acting

covertly

and

without any

transparency.

How would

you feel

if Matt

O

reporting

on,

you know,

all the

Russian

coordination

with Trump’s

campaign did

this?

Or Ezra

Klein with

whatever topics

he covers

and you will

very quickly

find yourself

infuriated.

And you should

then intellectually

as we say on

this program,

Steel Manning,

if you argue the

other side,

it’s infuriating

for either side

to experience

this.

And that is

what the 230

change needs

to be,

Chamath.

You’re

exactly

correct.

If you

make an

action,

it should

be

clear

to you

which

department

may be

maybe not

the person

so they

they get

personally

attacked.

And then

what the

resolution to

it is,

this has

been banned

because it’s

targeted

harassment.

This can

be resolved

in this

way.

Then

everybody’s

behavior

would steer

and that’s

why I’m infuriated

about it.

I think you

have to take it

one step

further to

really do

justice to

why this

should be

important to

everybody.

And I do

think this

school example,

it really

matters to

me.

Like we

have,

like I

don’t know

now,

we know

what the

counterfactual

is,

which,

like,

what if

Jay Bhattacharya,

who’s,

I mean,

like,

you can’t be,

you know,

have a higher

sort of role in

society in

terms of,

you know,

population

credentials.

I mean,

imagine if,

you know,

there was a

platform where

he could

have actually

said this

and that,

you know,

people would

have clamored

and said,

you know what,

why does he

think that?

Or maybe let’s

convene,

you know,

an actual

group of

20 or

30 scientists

and the

fact that

this one

version of

thinking about

things was

deemed so

heterodoxical,

it is just

such a good

example.

They shut down

an important

conversation.

You know that

the decision

was so

wrong and

the damage

was so

bad.

I mean,

this is

a bullet

example that

cleans through

all of this

other stuff

because,

you know,

I don’t

really care if

Rachel Maddow

has reclined,

who the

hell cares?

This is

important stuff

because it

affects everybody

irrespective of

your political

persuasion and

what editorial

you want to

read.

Chamath,

what if the

investigation

said fight

the real

enemy,

she ripped up

a picture of

the Pope

because of

the scandals

there.

She was

excommunicated,

she was

canceled at

that time,

one of the

first people

to be canceled

because she

spoke truth

to power.

What if

somebody,

an investigative

journalist at

the New York

Times,

the Boston

Globes are

in the movie

The Post,

which is

about the

revelations

about the

Catholic

Church,

or you go

back to

All the

President’s

Men.

What the

media

prized,

and what

they congratulated

themselves on,

was first of

all,

transparency,

and exposing

the lies of

powerful people.

Well,

that is

exactly what

has happened

here.

The media

is treating

Twitter policy

and suppressing

one side of

the debate

has been

exposed,

and the media

is treating it

with a yawn,

like there’s

nothing to see

here.

Why?

Because they

were complicit

in this,

they were

complicit

in suppressing

the views

of people

like Jay

Bhattacharya,

they were

complicit

in choosing

the views

of many

people,

and they

are

in

danger

of

being

destroyed.

They

are

in

danger

of

being

destroyed.

They

are

completely

at risk

from being

destroyed.

They

are

at risk

from being

destroyed.

And

they

are

completely

at risk

of being

destroyed.

They

are

completely

at risk

from being

destroyed.

And

they

are

completely

at risk

from being

destroyed."

But

this

is the

narrative

people

speaking

to.

People

corporations

and they don’t

get rewarded

for telling

the truth.

Oh no,

they’re going

for Pulitzers.

Trust me,

they are.

And what they

need to do is

stop thinking

short term

and think

long term.

Anytime

there’s a

conspiracy

theory,

you must

give it

some

validity

and say,

is there

any truth

here?

Because it

is the truth.

And

it’s

a

lie.

So

if you

are

a

good

person

and

you

are

a

good

person

and

you

are

a

good

person

and

you

are

a

good

person

for

years

and

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

and

if

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

and

if

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

and

if

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

and

if

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

and

if

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for

a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good

person

for a

very

long

time

then

I

believe

you

are

a

good