Billionaires rally around David Sacks after NYT exposé

Sacks‘ supporters were unable to give a reason for their animus outside of him being a “courageous” “badass.”Feelings don’t care about your facts

While many of the wealthiest individuals alive like to say they only trust facts, its become obvious that most of them are more invested in their feelings.

Indeed, none of the retorts described inaccurate reporting or a reason for the article to be considered an “op-ed,” as a legal threat letter to the NYT from Clare Locke stated it should be.

Marc Andreessen, the founder of a16z, called Sacks “a credit to our nation,” Don Wilson of DRW declared he was cancelling his subscription to the NYT, Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase, stated the NYT is “a political propaganda machine,” and Shaun Maguire, partner at Sequoia, characterized the article as “an attempted hit piece.”

None of them were able to pinpoint a reason for their animus outside of Sacks being a “badass,” “selfless volunteer,” and “courageous.”

The sheer volume and speed at which the replies flooded in points to an irrational defense of a clearly conflicted special government employee whos maintained his investments despite having nearly a year to divest.

Its unknown why Sacks has refused to divest from these companies in the face of unprecedented access to the White House and foreign leaders, outside of not being forced to divest by a heavily crypto and AI invested Trump family.

In response to suggestions that the wealthy and powerful had sent texts to one another to push forward a cohesive narrative, David Friedberg of the All-In podcast responded that Sacks “asked me and others not to post anything because the NYT doesnt deserve the airtime but looks like folks ignored him because they wanted to do the right thing and speak the truth.”

This is an odd description, considering that Sacks immediately, regularly, and often reposted any posts made in support of him.

Accurate reporting on oligarchs is a step too far

Telling was how many other deeply conflicted individuals were the first to defend Sacks, from OpenAI executives and billionaires over-invested in AI and crypto, to a congressman who represents Silicon Valley.

While all of them refused to engage in a discussion of the merits of the NYT article, they were more than happy to shower Sacks with praise. Many of the respondents have received direct investment from Sacks or his VC firm Craft Ventures.

A narrative has quickly coalesced around the idea that centimillionaire Sacks couldnt properly be a guiding force to the White House and Trump without remaining invested in hundreds of AI and crypto companies and is, in general, a good guy.

There‘s nothing wrong with the extremely wealthy publicly discussing how much they like a fellow wealthy person, but disparaging the NYT’s reporting without proving malice, incorrectness, or unreliability is bad faith.

The NYT has responded to Sackss legal threats, stating that it “remains confident in [its] reporting on Mr. Sacks,” and that its “reporters do not have an agenda — they examine leads, verify them in good faith with the subjects involved, and publish what [they can] confirm.”

It implies that it doesnt plan on making changes, moving the article to the op-ed page, or “abandoning the article,” as requested by Clare Locke.

Despite this, Sacks replied by saying the NYT is “spiraling,” and reposting an extensive “debunk” from an entrepreneur he had made a direct investment in through Craft Ventures.

Its safe to assume that while the wealthy and powerful have united around a message, the Streisand effect is pushing the accurate and fair reporting from the NYT into the hearts and minds of many who would have otherwise ignored it.