Editor's Note: In this interview, SBF discusses his life in prison, his interactions with Diddy, the Democratic Party's betrayal of him, the future of cryptocurrency, and his reflections on effective altruism with Tucker Carlson. SBF describes the monotony and challenges of prison life, reflects on the reasons for the collapse of FTX, and criticizes the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)'s regulation of the cryptocurrency industry. Although he still believes in the principles of effective altruism, he admits that helping others requires a deeper understanding. The interview also touches on SBF's uncertainty about the future and his legal and interpersonal dilemmas.

The following is the original content (for easier reading and understanding, the original content has been reorganized):

What is prison life like?

Tucker Carlson: Where are you now?

SBF: I was in a small room at NDC in Brooklyn.

Tucker Carlson: How's it here? How long have you been here?

SBF: I've been in jail for about two years.

Tucker Carlson: What was that like?

SBF: It's a bit dystopian, fortunately there's no physical danger where I'm at. And to be honest, a lot of the staff here are really trying to help, they're doing what they can within the current restrictions. But at the end of the day, nobody wants to go to jail. You can imagine putting 40 people in a room, all of them have been charged with at least one crime, for years, and throwing away the key. In that situation, even the most trivial things become the only things they care about.

Tucker Carlson: Really? Did you run into any problems?

SBF: Nothing too serious, like I wasn't attacked or anything like that. But I had a lot of logistical problems, the biggest of which was that I had very little access to legal documents during my trial. Usually, on trial day, they woke me up at 4 a.m., and I spent five hours in buses, trucks, and waiting rooms until the morning trial started. Then the trial lasted until 5 p.m., and then I had another four hours of waiting rooms and transportation, and I got back to my cell at 9 p.m., and by then I had missed the legal documents. That was the biggest obstacle to my case.

Tucker Carlson: So what do you do when you're not in court?

SBF: There's not much to do in prison. I read books, started reading novels again, played chess occasionally, and tried to prepare for my legal case. I have an appeal and other legal matters, and I try to do what I can. But the most frustrating thing about prison is the lack of meaningful things to do.

Tucker Carlson: Honestly, we haven't talked before, but I've been following you. I also want to say that I feel bad for anybody who's in jail, no matter what they're accused of or what they've done. I don't think people should be locked up.

Tucker Carlson: Of course, I know the law requires it, but I really feel bad for all the people in prison. You can call me a "liberal," but I have to say that after two years in prison, you look healthier and less tense than before.

SBF: You know, I've had a lot of time to reflect on how I communicate with people. Looking back, I think I didn't do a good enough job of communicating, especially when the crisis first broke out and in the month that followed. I made a mistake that I often make - I got caught up in the details and forgot to grasp the big picture.

Was SBF taking medication before he went to prison?

Tucker Carlson: Every time I saw you on TV, it looked like you were high on Adderall. But now you don't look like that. Were you really not taking it?

SBF: No, I didn’t. My mind was almost at a standstill because there were so many things to deal with. Normally, during that time at FTX, I would go to an interview, but at the same time as the interview, there might be two urgent issues at the company that needed to be addressed. So I was answering messages on Slack while I was doing the interview. In addition, I knew there would be other things to do after the interview, and I hadn’t had time to prepare, so I was trying to plan ahead in my mind.

Tucker Carlson: So maybe the digital world is not good for us? What do you think? You're being forced away from your phone, and that must be a big deal?

SBF: It is, but if I had to choose, I would still prefer the digital world. Ultimately, for me, it's not about enjoyment, entertainment or leisure, it's about productivity and the ability to have an impact in the world. From that perspective, it would be extremely difficult to get anything done without the digital world.

SBF meets Diddy in prison

Tucker Carlson: Did you make any friends there? How was your relationship with Diddy? I heard he was there, too.

SBF: Yes, he was. But… I don’t know how to put it. He was very friendly to me. I made some friends. It was a strange environment. There were a few people who had high-profile cases similar to mine, and a lot of young people, or so-called former gang members and things like that.

Tucker Carlson: It's true that he is an "alleged" former gang member. So, what about Diddy himself?

SBF: I only saw one side of him, the real Diddy. He was very friendly to the people here, including me. But this is a place that no one wants to be in, obviously he doesn't want it, and I don't want it either. As he said, this is a soul-destroying place for anyone. Moreover, the only people we can interact with here are the people around us who are also in it, not the outside world.

Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I can imagine. And you two are two of the most famous prisoners in the world, and you're in the same unit. What do other people, like the armed robbers, think of you?

SBF: That’s an interesting question. Of course, some people might think that this is an opportunity to meet different circles of people who they would never have the chance to meet us normally. From their point of view, this idea is actually logical, although it is not the case for me at all.

Tucker Carlson: So that's not what you meant, right?

SBF: No, but sometimes, laughing might be the only thing to do. You know what? These guys are really good at chess, and that's one thing I learned here. For example, many of the former armed robbers didn't speak English and probably didn't even graduate from middle school, but they were pretty good at chess. Of course, I'm not saying they were chess masters, but they were much better than I expected, and I often lost to them, and I didn't expect that at all.

SBF's change of perspective after imprisonment

Tucker Carlson: Have these experiences changed your perspective?

SBF: I think it's part of a broader understanding. One of the most profound things I've learned in my life, and one that I still don't fully understand, is that what we call intelligence, IQ, is important, and hard work is important, but there's something else that we can't define. I still don't have the right words to describe it. But some people, with these ineffable qualities, demonstrate extremely outstanding abilities and even exceed everyone's expectations.

Of course, not everyone has these traits, and everyone’s situation is different. But at FTX, we often encounter situations like this - some people have almost no highlights in their resumes and no relevant experience, but they eventually surpass most people in the company. They are resilient, intuitive, and have a strong sense of commitment. They know how to work, how to collaborate with others, and how to quickly find solutions to problems. These things are often more important than pure IQ or experience.

Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I've seen a lot of people who make a lot of money in finance who look really dumb, but they obviously have some kind of gift that I can't understand. That's what they look like to me.

SBF: Hmm? I'm curious what type of people you're talking about. I used to work on Wall Street, and there are really all kinds of people there.

Despite the massive donation from SBF, the Democrats refused to rescue him

Tucker Carlson: I don't want to go into the details of your case, but overall it seems that your company has deliberately established political connections through political donations. This is not surprising. Many entrepreneurs do this, and it can even be said to be an industry practice. But you donated so much money to the Democratic Party, I would have thought they would eventually save you. What about your Democratic friends? They usually keep their own people out of jail, such as Tony Podesta, so why did you go to jail?

SBF: Obviously I can only guess at the answer because I have no way of knowing what they really think. But there is one fact that might be worth noting - even in 2020, my position was center-left, and I donated to Biden's campaign. I was optimistic at the time that he would be a solid center-left president. In the following years, I went to Washington frequently, stayed there for a long time, and made dozens of visits. But I was shocked by what I saw, and the direction of this administration was not ideal. By mid-to-late 2022, I had begun to privately donate to the Republican Party, and the amount was about the same as that to the Democratic Party. And this fact began to become known around the time when FTX collapsed.

Tucker Carlson: Why are you shocked? I know you've been in Washington for a long time and have been around a lot of politicians. What shocked you?

SBF: Some things are more extreme than I would have otherwise feared, like cryptocurrency regulation. I never thought the Democratic Party as a whole would be good on financial regulation, but there are some good people in both parties and a lot of thoughtful policymakers.

But the SEC under Gary Gensler is a nightmare. For example, if a company wants to provide a product or service in the United States, the SEC will directly sue them on the grounds that they are not registered. But if the company goes to Gensler and expresses its willingness to register and asks what category to register, the SEC’s answer is usually - "There is no registration category suitable for you", or even no solution at all.

They require companies to obtain certain licenses, but they don't know how to issue them. Basically, the entire cryptocurrency industry is stuck in this situation. This is a very disturbing phenomenon that I see.

Tucker Carlson: Can you explain that a little bit more? Even a layman like me can see that Gary Gensler is obviously corrupt, and everybody knows that. But what is his motivation? What does he want?

SBF: Although I can't get into his head, I can share some impressions. He likes to be in power, of course, many people like to be in power, and he is no exception. In a way, this is a power struggle. He wants his organization to have more power, even if he has no real plan to promote the development of the industry, but just wants to stop the entire industry from moving forward. For example, he requires all crypto companies to register with him, but if these companies don't come to him, he will lose power. Even if he doesn't know how to regulate these companies, he still wants them to be under his jurisdiction.

There are a lot of rumors about him (Gary Gensler), saying that he is very ambitious in politics and thinks that if he can get enough exposure on MSNBC and other media, express enough opinions, and shape his image, maybe one day he can become an important position like Treasury Secretary. He has successfully become one of the representatives of the Democratic Party in the field of financial regulation, which is unusual.

Tucker Carlson: Interesting, that sounds very Washington, and I've seen similar situations before.

SBF: It wasn't a moral issue, or because he had deep-seated communist beliefs or anything like that, right?

Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I know that's not the case. He was driven more by personal gain than by some deeply held belief. So when things started to go bad and you were criminally charged, or realized you might be criminally charged, you had donated so much money to the Democratic Party.

In business, it's common for donors to call politicians they've funded and say, "Hey, I'm in trouble, can you help me?" Have you contacted Chuck Schumer or other politicians you've supported, asking them to pressure the Biden administration's Department of Justice to help you out?

SBF: I didn't, for a number of reasons. First, I didn't want to do anything inappropriate. Second, a lot of people were very quick to make their positions known and to distance themselves from me. By that time, I was probably better connected with the Republicans in Washington than I was with the Democrats, although that wasn't clear to the outside world and it wasn't obvious from the outside.

SBF: There’s actually a more complicated story behind this, involving a law firm that played an unusual role in the case, but the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had already made up its mind to go after me long before I gave up control of FTX and even before the company filed for bankruptcy.

Tucker Carlson: So you're not trying to pull strings or ask for favors? Interesting. So, what do you think about the future of cryptocurrency? Obviously, you probably have mixed feelings about this topic because of your experience, having run a cryptocurrency company and now being in jail for it. But you know a lot about the industry, and the cryptocurrency space is moving very quickly. Where do you think it's going? I know this is a little bit of an odd question for you, but I couldn't help but ask.

The Future of Cryptocurrency Under Trump

SBF: Well, I hope things will be better in the future. If you look at what the Trump administration said when it came into office, a lot of it was positive. There are a lot of differences compared to the current administration. Especially the direction that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken.

Obviously, enforcement is the most important thing, and we are actually at this stage now - we will see how it develops in the future. It is not surprising. Sometimes changes in government bring changes, but financial regulators are huge and they are not the kind of institutions that can change instantly. They have played a big role in hindering the cryptocurrency field in the past decade. You see, the United States has a 30% share of global finance, but only about 5% of the cryptocurrency market. This is entirely a regulatory issue. The United States is particularly difficult to work with in this regard.

SBF: So the big question is, when the real challenges come, will the current government make the necessary decisions and find the right ways to implement them?

Tucker Carlson: I remember when cryptocurrency first came into the public eye, the idea was that it was a currency that would restore the freedom of commerce to individuals. In other words, I could buy and sell things without government control and still have privacy. But obviously, that never happened and it looks like it never will. Now it seems like cryptocurrency is just another asset scam. How did the privacy thing go away? How did all this change?

SBF: Actually, it’s also about technology, like remittances and other payment methods - these are not just investment issues. Many people once thought that cryptocurrencies could change the world. You see, these things usually progress slower than investments. In fact, the rise of social media is similar. You see bubbles continue to grow and burst, and changes are very rapid, while the development of technology is based on a longer-term foundation.

Right now, cryptocurrencies are not at the stage where they are a tool that a quarter of the world’s population can use every day. It’s not there yet, but it’s not far off. If — and this is an assumption — the industry continues to progress and isn’t overly distracted by market price fluctuations, then in five to ten years, you can imagine a world where anyone can have a crypto wallet, and a billion people can use it every day, with privacy, security, speed, cheapness, internationality — all the things that were promised, without being distracted by gimmicks and hype.

Tucker Carlson: Do you think governments would allow this to happen? Wouldn't governments collapse immediately if the world's population were allowed to conduct financial transactions without government control?

SBF: There is actually a lot of discussion about the degree of regulatory control, and if you look at an example like Bitcoin, the wallets are anonymous, but there is a public ledger for every transaction, so the government can get some level of information without having complete control.

But it's important to point out that not all governments in the world see this the same way. The US government has had one view of global monetary affairs control for the past 30 years, and it's not just the US, France and other countries have similar positions. You see another view that is more authoritative, and even in many authoritarian countries, this control is more closed. And half of the world's countries don't actually try to have such large-scale government intervention in daily financial transactions like the United States.

SBF Does he still have money?

Tucker Carlson: Do you still have money after what you went through?

SBF: Basically, no. The company I owned went bankrupt. Without intervention, it would have had about $15 billion in liabilities and about $93 billion in assets. So in theory the answer is yes, there would have been or is enough money to pay everybody back, with plenty of interest left over, and leave tens of billions of dollars for investors. But it didn't work out that way. Instead, everything was swept into bankruptcy, and the assets were quickly depleted by the people who controlled it, who siphoned off tens of billions of dollars worth of funds. It was a huge disaster. And my failure to prevent that from happening is the biggest regret of my life.

Tucker Carlson: You know everybody in crypto. You were one of the most well-known people in the industry before the allegations and all this. Do you consider yourself, as honestly as possible, the biggest criminal in crypto?

SBF: I don’t think that’s a crime. So the answer is obviously no. I think the Department of Justice probably thinks I am, but I don’t care what they think.

Tucker Carlson: You're in jail now. That's what they say, anyway. But I'm wondering, I did criticize your business and other businesses like it in the past. I'm not going to get into the details of your case, though, because it's too complicated. I just want to ask, do you feel like there's a lot of shady behavior in the crypto industry? Be honest.

SBF: Yeah, 10 years ago the answer was clearly yes, at least relative to the size of the industry. If you look at around 2014 to 2017, the industry was much smaller than it is now, and a lot of the transactions - or at least a large part of them - were for some less glamorous purposes. For example, Silk Road, where people bought drugs online was one of the common uses of cryptocurrency at the time. Obviously, there are criminals in any industry, but that part of the industry has dropped significantly over time. Part of that is due to the growth of other aspects of the crypto space, but also because of more government involvement in anti-money laundering. So, there is still some, but it is not as prevalent as it used to be.

Tucker Carlson: You've been known for this worldview or ideology - you might even say religion - called effective altruism. The core idea is, do the most good for the most people, and you make money to help as many people as possible. Someone pointed out, ironically, that when your company went bankrupt, about a million people lost money. So, in this effort that you described to "do the most good for the most people," a lot of people were hurt. I'm wondering if all this has made you rethink the principles of effective altruism?

SBF: It didn’t make me rethink those principles. Obviously, I felt really bad about what happened. It was not what I wanted at all, nor what anyone had intended. If you had screwed up, it could have turned out differently. Eventually people got their money back, but the wait was painful. They got it back in dollars, not in the form it was meant to be. And most of the good I had hoped to do for the world was lost with the collapse of the company.

Tucker Carlson: I would say that I think most people have a hard time grasping the idea that helping someone you've never met is more worthwhile or more valuable than helping someone right in front of you. In other words, helping your wife, your girlfriend, your mother, your daughter, your brother, your college roommate is more valuable than helping a village in a country you've never been to. I think that's how most people intuitively feel. But you disagree.

SBF: I disagree, but only on a premise. Indeed, a classic mistake that people make—and I have made it at times—is to assume that you know what people who are far from you need when you don’t really know them. It’s kind of condescending. You know, there are so many international aid projects that fail and are a complete waste of money because no one really knows the lives of the people being helped. They just guess what they need, and they’re often wrong. For example, they took a bunch of water pumps to a village in Fiji that didn’t have a shortage of water, but they did have a shortage of food. These people dropped out of Harvard to hand out these water pumps that nobody wanted. There are so many examples like this. And when you help people you know, you obviously know how to help them better. That effect is real. Even if I think that life in one place is as important as life in another, it doesn’t mean that you know how to help everyone equally.

Tucker Carlson: I feel like you're contradicting your own position. I mean, my problem with effective altruism is that it's too easy. Like, eradicating polio is easy, but keeping the same woman happy for 30 years is very hard. So maybe it makes more sense to do something harder.

SBF: I would say, take malaria, for example, nobody in the United States dies from malaria anymore, literally nobody. But globally, it still kills about a million people a year, which is horrible. It’s a disease that we should have eradicated, and we absolutely should be addressing it globally. But because it’s somehow “easy,” that shouldn’t stop us from helping others. Look, if we put resources into many of the interventions in the poorest parts of the world, the scale of the resources required is actually not that large. If it’s done efficiently, it won’t have much of an impact on our domestic aid. But efficiency is key. You can hand out useless water pumps to villages with no food, but that’s not going to help anyone.

Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I think you have a point. Aid to Africa over the last 60 years has proven that, even as life expectancy has been declining. But as a moral issue, how can you justify worrying about malaria while your cousin is addicted to Xanax? Shouldn't you address that first?

SBF: If I can. But at the end of the day, we all have a responsibility. If I know my cousin well and I know how to fix this, then it is absolutely my responsibility to do it. But if I try and I can’t, and I can’t make progress, and I can save lives internationally, or someone can do it, then I don’t think that diminishes the good that they can do internationally, even if they can’t fix the problem in their own family.

Tucker Carlson: Well, I see your point. I don't think it's a crazy idea. Last question: Can you think of a recent international aid program that was clearly successful?

SBF: To some extent, but I wouldn't say which program. It's not a government program, but some private program. Malaria is actually a good example. Through mainly private donations, malaria rates have been reduced dramatically around the world, especially in Africa and India, saving probably hundreds of thousands of lives a year, at an average cost of a few thousand dollars per life saved. It's an astonishing success in relative terms.

We're not talking about $1 trillion, we're talking about billions of dollars that have been put toward malaria control through very careful work. Of course, you also have government programs that are completely ineffective. If you want to look for a successful government program, the Marshall Plan is probably a good example - although this goes back a long time - which was a huge success in many ways in rebuilding Germany after World War II.

Tucker Carlson: Yeah, even though we may have ruined that by blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline. But you're right. How old are you now?

Can SBF really get out of prison?

SBF: To be honest, I have to think about it. In prison, time blurs and every day is the same as the day before, blending together. The answer is, tomorrow is my birthday, so I am 32 now, but will be 33 soon.

Tucker Carlson: How are you going to celebrate your birthday?

SBF: I don't celebrate. I didn't really celebrate birthdays when I was out there, and celebrating another year in prison is nothing to get excited about.

Tucker Carlson: So you're not going to tell Diddy that tomorrow's your birthday? I don't believe it.

SBF: Maybe someone else will tell him, but I have no plans to do so.

Tucker Carlson: Well, you're going to be 33 tomorrow. If you hadn't been pardoned, how old would you be when you get out of prison, given the way things are now?

SBF: It's a complicated calculation and I don't know all the details because there is a possibility of sentence reduction. If you simply add my sentence and age, the answer is close to 50 years old.

Tucker Carlson: Can you handle that?

SBF: Sorry, I misspoke. If you include all possible reductions, it would be in the 50s. But the correct answer is that I was 32 when I was convicted and I was sentenced to 25 years, so I was 57.

Tucker Carlson: You've already served 2 years, and you have 23 years left. Do you think you can make it?

SBF: That's a good question. I'm not sure. The hardest part is that there's nothing meaningful to do here. Look, there are studies that show that the suicide rate in prison is about three times higher than it should be. So, 25 years times three, plus the fact that I was 32 when I was convicted, might give me an answer. Maybe.

Tucker Carlson: I think that's a little weird. You're probably the most extreme example of someone I've talked to who's jumped from one world to a completely different world. You were in the world of digital currency, and now you're in a world without money. What is the medium of exchange in prison?

SBF: You know, just the stuff that people have on hand. Like muffins, those little muffins in plastic, like you see at the gas station counter, in a plastic ball, with the individually wrapped muffins sitting at room temperature from a week ago. Imagine that kind of thing, that's the standard. Or a package of ramen soup, or a package of fish that looks disgusting and is soaked in oil, also at room temperature.

Tucker Carlson: So, you went from crypto to the muffin economy. Exactly. How do you compare the two? Obviously, muffins are harder to move internationally, but as a currency, how do you feel about that?

SBF: Muffins are unlikely to become a global strategic reserve currency in the short term. They are a demand currency with no other use and not much to recommend them. But at the end of the day, they are somewhat fungible. Not completely fungible, but close enough. Two muffins are about the same, so you can trade them. As long as the transaction amount does not exceed $5, they are still usable. But if you want to make a $200 transaction with a muffin, that is not realistic.

Tucker Carlson:     ...

SBF: Exactly. One thing you realize very quickly is that everything in prison is scaled down. You see people fighting over a banana, not because they care about the banana, but because they have no other outlet.

Tucker Carlson: That sounds pretty brutal. Do you eat those muffins? Or do you just trade them?

SBF: I just trade them. I don't eat them. I eat mostly rice, beans, and ramen noodles.

Tucker Carlson: Looks like it's good for you. Do you have any tattoos?

SBF: I don’t. I know some people do, but I don’t.

Tucker Carlson: Have you ever thought about that?

SBF: I did think about getting a tattoo. But after talking to fellow inmates about their sterilization procedures—or lack thereof—I was put off by that idea. I wasn't interested in getting a tattoo. It wasn't worth the risk of getting hepatitis. They sterilize the needles after they've used them on maybe four or five people.

Why did everyone around SBF abandon him?

Tucker Carlson: Okay, so you don't get tattoos. Now that you're out in the world and you're facing a 23-year sentence, I wonder, the people that you helped - I mean, you went to prison because you hurt people, but you also helped a lot of people in Washington by giving away millions of dollars. Did any of them call you and say, "Good luck, I hope everything works out for you"? Or did they say nothing?

SBF: In the immediate aftermath of the collapse, I received many friendly messages from people, including some in Washington. But after six months, no one contacted me. By the time of the trial, I was in jail, and there was no news. It became too politically sensitive, and people didn't want to risk contacting me. I even heard people say nice things about me privately, but no one wanted to contact me directly.

Tucker Carlson: Have you been contacted by anyone? I noticed that someone I thought was your girlfriend testified against you. Do you have any friends who have been loyal and supportive? Or almost none?

SBF: Yes, but rarely. I later learned that anybody who was close to me was threatened eventually. They were told there were two options, one of which could mean decades in prison. Ryan Salem was the most heartbreaking example, and the most disgusting example from the government’s perspective. They charged him with some completely ridiculous crimes. He said, “No, we’ll see you in court.” So the government came back and said, “Well, what about your pregnant wife? What if we put her in jail?” So he pleaded guilty because the government threatened to keep his wife. No legal system would allow prosecutors to do that. And he wasn’t even charged with most of the crimes that the other people who pleaded guilty were charged with. Ryan didn’t testify at trial because he didn’t want to lie and say what the government wanted him to say. And he ended up getting four times more than the other three people combined. The message couldn’t be clearer. Was it because he was a Republican or because he refused to play along with the government’s lies at trial? Those are the only two reasons I can think of that they sentenced him to seven and a half years.

Tucker Carlson: It's disgusting. I interviewed him at his home. I think they also accused his wife. It's completely unethical what they did.

SBF: Absolutely agree. They broke their promise and it completely shatters any notion that they have any integrity. It's disgusting. He's a good guy and he doesn't deserve this.

Tucker Carlson: Do you realize that the world outside is changing so quickly? By the time you get out of prison, the world may be completely different than when you left. For example, the development of AI, it sounds like we are approaching artificial general intelligence (AGI) or some kind of singularity.

SBF: Yes, I felt that very deeply. It's that feeling that the world has moved on and you've been left behind.

Tucker Carlson: Is having children part of your philosophy of effective altruism?

SBF: No. Different people in the community have different views on it. For the last five years, I feel like I've had about 300 kids every day - my employees. Obviously, I can't be a father to all of them, but I have a responsibility to them. I feel really bad that their jobs are being destroyed. But I had almost no personal life when I was running FTX. Now in prison, I'm obviously not in a position to have kids.

Tucker Carlson: Did any of those 300 employees ever visit you in prison?

SBF: No. I think the answer is no. One or two people may have been there.

Tucker Carlson: You should probably consider having some real kids at some point because they'll be there for you when things get bad.

SBF: It made me think about what it means to be relied upon and the extent to which intimidation can be practiced in certain systems in our country. But it also made me realize how important it is to have people you can rely on.

Tucker Carlson: Everyone else is everything. SBF, I appreciate you doing this interview, probably the only interview you've ever had where you weren't asked about your business because that's other people's business. But I'm glad we talked, and I hope you give Diddy our regards.

SBF: Definitely.

Tucker Carlson: I can't believe you and Diddy are in the same jail.

SBF: I know, right? If someone had told me three years ago that I would be hanging out with Diddy every day, I would have found it hilarious. I guess he's also into crypto?

Tucker Carlson: Life is so strange. I wish you all the best, and thank you. It looks like YouTube is suppressing the show. In one sense, it's not surprising, that's what they do. But in another sense, it's shocking. At a time when so much is changing in the world, in our economy and politics, on the brink of war, Google has decided that you should get less information, not more. It's just wrong. Tomorrow, what can you do about it? We can complain, but that's a waste of time. We can't control Google. Or we can find ways around it so that you actually get factual information, not deliberately misleading information.

「 Original link 」

Welcome to join the BlockBeats official community:

Telegram subscription group: https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Official Twitter account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia