Keith Fox

Co-founder Civiltalk, CEO Fox Family Foundation , ex Cisco and Apple executive.

[Keith Fox @keithfox]

@DavidSacks 👏👍spot on

[David Sacks @DavidSacks]

Democrats are trying to dismiss the White House Accord on Super Intelligence as optional self-policing. But although the agreement was entered into voluntarily, the governance that follows from it is not. As Gavin Baker points out, once an independent auditor reports a safety issue to an independent board committee, directors have a fiduciary duty not to disregard it, and a D&O carrier can use a bad-faith finding to deny coverage. So although the agreement starts with internal controls, these are verified by external audit and board oversight — and then existing FTC and securities law still apply to any public claim the company does not keep. This is far more practical than what Democrats want — a freeze on frontier development while China races ahead. Democrats should applaud what President Trump has accomplished. But they would rather use SI safety as a campaign issue than admit the Accord represents major progress.

[Joe Gebbia @jgebbia]

Imagine seeing your work announced on the national stage by the world's most gifted speakers, like @SecRubio who introduced our new design for the U.S. Passport, in collaboration with the State Department. National Design Studio is growing! https://t.co/3fTkBTJHbA

[Keith Fox @keithfox]

@theallinpod David - thank you for articulating the simple fact he really doesn’t understand the technology so he really doesn’t understand the policy decisions he is calling for. Invite him on the show

[Keith Fox @keithfox]

https://t.co/OIAzUL50Gv

Uniting Us All

Take a read

[Keith Fox @keithfox]

#NeverForget.

Twenty-five years ago today, nearly 3,000 innocent people lost their lives.

We remember them.
We honor the heroes who ran toward danger.
We stand with the families who still carry the loss.

And we remember what happened afterward:

America united.

May we never forget those we lost—or what we can be when we stand together. 🇺🇸

[Keith Fox @keithfox]

I think this gets to the heart of what we’re building at CivilTalk.

Conversational intelligence is a learned skill. And like any skill, it requires feedback, practice and reinforcement to improve.

The problem is that most of us have thousands of conversations every year with almost no objective feedback about how we actually communicate.

Clarion changes that.

It makes the behaviors inside our conversations visible—how we listen, respond, acknowledge different perspectives, demonstrate emotional intelligence and move a conversation forward.

You can’t intentionally improve what you can’t see.

We make human conversations visible.

https://t.co/ynOTkF1TUb

[Keith Fox @keithfox]

@allinpodcast Canada and America: The Real Issue Is China

Maybe the U.S.–Canada dispute is simpler than we’re making it.

Canada’s red line is sovereignty.

America’s red lines are China and critical supply-chain dependency.

Russia isn’t the unresolved issue.

Canada and America largely agree on Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine, both countries condemned it, imposed sanctions and sharply limited economic engagement.

China is different.

Canada is deliberately expanding its economic relationship with China. It has established a new strategic partnership, wants to increase exports to China by 50% by 2030, is opening limited access to Chinese EVs, and is seeking Chinese investment in Canadian energy and manufacturing. (Canada PM⁠)

At the same time, America is trying to reduce its strategic dependence on China.

That’s the collision.

America learned from COVID and from China:

Never again allow a critical supply chain to exist without a Plan B.

And critical supply chains aren’t simply about who has minerals in the ground.

They are:

EXTRACT → REFINE → PROCESS → MANUFACTURE

The Western Hemisphere has extraordinary resources. Canada itself is investing in more domestic critical-mineral processing and refining, which is exactly the direction North America needs. (Canada⁠)

The opportunity should be to build the complete chain among America, Canada, Mexico and other trusted partners:

EXTRACT HERE.
REFINE HERE.
PROCESS HERE.
MANUFACTURE HERE.

Canada absolutely has the sovereign right to trade with China. America trades with China too.

But sovereignty doesn’t mean carte blanche without consequences for a privileged economic relationship.

There is an old saying:

“The friend of my enemy is my enemy.”

China isn’t literally America’s enemy. It is, however, America’s principal strategic competitor.

So perhaps the better rule for allies is:

“You can’t ask to be treated as a trusted partner while strengthening the strategic leverage of your partner’s principal competitor.”

And threatening America with potash, energy or other critical supplies only reinforces the lesson America already learned from China:

Never become critically dependent on one supplier.

That may be the clarity missing from the public U.S. position.

Canada: Respect our sovereignty.

America: We will. But we are going to protect ourselves from China and ensure we have strategic optionality.

Canada should diversify. Trade with allies. Build new markets. Become stronger.

But Canada and America need clarity about China’s role in critical North American supply chains.

Until they have that discussion, why should either country expect the other to deepen its strategic dependence or offer favored treatment?

The red lines seem pretty clear:

CANADA: SOVEREIGNTY.

USA: CHINA + SUPPLY-CHAIN SECURITY.

Those aren’t irreconcilable.

Respect both.

Get back to the table.

Work it out.

And that brings me back to Civiltalk.

This is what Conversational Intelligence is about.

Stop arguing about motives long enough to identify the underlying interests.

Identify the red lines.

Acknowledge the legitimate concerns on both sides.

Then find the space where agreement is possible.

Clarity first.
Then conversation.
Then negotiation.

That’s Civiltalk

[Keith Fox @keithfox]

@dougleone - terrific interview. I trust all is well.

[Keith Fox @keithfox]

The U.S. and Canada may not need another argument about trade.

They may need a better conversation.

What if both sides securely put Clarion into the room—not to negotiate or decide who’s right, but simply to help them understand one another?

Understanding isn’t agreement.

But understanding what we’re really disagreeing about is often where solutions begin.

My thoughts on how AI and Conversational Intelligence could help 🇺🇸 🇨🇦:

https://t.co/UAUlP8PJM0

[Keith Fox @keithfox]

Congressman @RoKhanna — I saw your suggestion about allowing illiquid founders to take a government loan against their shares to pay the tax, with the government eventually taking the shares if they can’t repay.
I understand the argument that billionaires should pay more in taxes. What I don’t understand is why we would choose an approach that seems fundamentally at odds with encouraging entrepreneurship.
I’m not a billionaire.
I am an entrepreneur. I’ve built companies and mentored entrepreneurs. And through that lens, I struggle with this.
Imagine a founder builds a successful company and, after years of growth and investment, the founder’s ownership is worth $1 billion on paper.
The founder took substantial risk. Angel investors risked their capital when success was far from certain. Employees may hold options. Other investors provided capital for growth.
Everyone is taking risk.
The founder hasn’t sold anything. There may be no public market. The company could become worth much more—or fail.
The founder doesn’t have $1 billion. The founder owns shares someone currently estimates are worth $1 billion.
A government loan that later forces the founder to either repay in cash or surrender the shares still creates a liability based on an estimated value that hasn’t been realized. It still requires the founder to put an already-at-risk asset on the line to the government.
Why require that?
If the objective is for billionaires to pay more, aren’t there better approaches?
Perhaps progressive capital-gains rates at extraordinary levels of realized gains.
If someone chooses to monetize appreciated assets by borrowing millions against them for personal use, perhaps target that transaction.
We can separately debate taxation of enormous unrealized gains at death.
I don’t claim to have the perfect answer.
But America should encourage people to take risks, start companies, create jobs, innovate and build things.
Happy to have the conversation. Entrepreneurs, investors, and tax experts should be part of it.
That’s why we built Civiltalk — not to tell people what to think, but to help people who disagree have better conversations and reach better outcomes.
https://t.co/mOW34ksyYU

[Keith Fox @keithfox]

@Benioff @salesforce 👏👏👏

[Keith Fox @keithfox]

@pmarca @DavidSacks Agreed👏🙏

[Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 @pmarca]

David Sacks @DavidSacks is a throwback to the era of American greatness in which the most capable private sector citizens selflessly volunteered for government service in moments of peril for a dollar a day. He is a credit to our nation, and we need more like him, not fewer. 🇺🇸

[MAGA Voice @MAGAVoice]

HOLY SH*T 🚨 Arnold Schwarzenegger is going VIRAL for demonstrating how to save Democracy:

1) Make Election Day a federal holiday
2) Fair redistricting in all 50 states
3) Voter ID in all 50 States

WE NEED TO STOP THE FUTURE STEAL

[Keith Fox @keithfox]

@elonmusk The Fair Tax would be a good place to start with a reform idea. https://t.co/xBBciUe9c3

[Aaron Levie @levie]

The problem with Biden’s original unrealized capital gains tax proposal is that it promotes holding illiquid, less fluctuating assets, and punishes investing in or building new ideas that eventually go public and help grow economy, create jobs, and create wealth for others. There are also many impracticalities of any proposal for taxing unrealized gains: insider trading laws that would make it hard to sell the stock to pay for the tax, the administrative nightmare since valuations change constantly, and the fact that the government would effectively force you to sell an asset well before it is desirable.

Whether we like it or not, taxes incentivize or disincentivize behaviors across the economy, and an unrealized gains tax discourages the very engine that makes America the #1 economy in the world.

There are still plenty of ways to raise tax revenue that would *not* hurt the economy, like taxing personal loans that are taken with stock as collateral, improving estate or inheritance taxes, updating deduction rules, and many more.

Harris has the opportunity to move away from Biden’s tax plan, while still bringing in more tax revenue, and doing so in a more fair and practical way.

[David Sacks @DavidSacks]

I want to thank @reidhoffman and @RobertKennedyJr for coming on @theallinpod this week. Reid deserves credit for walking into the lion's den after we dueled on X. We discussed political differences in a civil way, which is hard to do these days, and in keeping with the spirit of the All-In Pod.

[Keith Fox @keithfox]

@Starlink Well done. 8 billion people on the planet. All need to be connected , and especially in rural areas, and especially in developing countries. Keep doing what you are doing👍