David Sacks

People kind of see the New York Times for what it is, which is basically a bunch of political activists who are pretending to be reporters.

And essentially, they just launder the point of view of their anonymous sources who are basically left-wing Democrats.

and try to portray those viewpoints as somehow being neutral or objective truth, right?

Because they're kind of presenting themselves as these neutral arbiters of the truth.

And I think everyone can kind of see through that sham at this point.

The thing they started with was the headline.

And that was the one thing they refused to change, no matter how many times we refuted their narrative.

What they would do is every couple of weeks, they'd send us a new fact check.

And we would basically debunk it.

And we can show you some of those fact checks if you want to see them to see where the story started, what they're trying to prove.

And what would happen is every time we would debunk one of their accusations, they would just come back to us with a new one in every couple of weeks.

The only fixed point in their reporting was this idea that I had to have these conflicts of interest that were benefiting myself and my friends.

That you were self-dealing.

Yes, exactly.

So you guys know what I went through because I was LPs and some of your funds and you know that I divested them.

which you could argue was above and beyond the call of duty, but I was just trying to avoid any potential conflict.

And that I think is the central lie of this piece.

Not only is the piece not true, it's the anti-truth.

Because the truth is that I divested hundreds of millions of dollars of positions

in promising technology ventures at a substantial cost to my net worth.